2008 (6) TMI 565 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Order of assessment exhibit P14 questioned - Held that - While in the beginning the assessing authority states that the objections are not signed and therefore they are rejected, a perusal of the order would further show that the authority has considered the objections of the petitioner and proceeded to reject the same on merits. Once the latter course came to be adopted by the assessing authority, it is evident that the authority was adopting a course which involves rejection of the objections on merits which he could have done only after an opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner, going by the decisions of the court aforesaid. Once this principle is found to be contravened, than it is not necessary to drive the party to pursue the alternate remedy, as the contravention of the law is patent and violation of the principles of natural justice is an established exception to the general principle that courts would not entertain writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the face of effective and efficacious alternate remedies available. In such circumstances, it is constrained to quash exhibit P14.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order for the assessment year 2003-04 and request for a copy of the verification report of the intelligence officer referred to in the notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged exhibit P14 assessment order for the assessment year 2003-04 and sought a mandamus to obtain a copy of the verification report of the intelligence officer mentioned in exhibit P12 notice. The petitioner contended that the assessment was based on the intelligence officer's report, which was not provided to them despite a request. The petitioner argued that the assessing authority's refusal to provide a copy of the report violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner also highlighted the necessity of being heard when objections to a pre-assessment notice are rejected, citing relevant case law. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the failure to provide a copy of the relied-upon document and the absence of a hearing opportunity amounted to a breach of natural justice principles.

The assessing authority rejected the petitioner's objections on the grounds that they were not signed. However, upon closer examination of the impugned order, it was evident that the authority had indeed considered and rejected the objections on their merits. This action indicated that the authority had proceeded to dismiss the objections without providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard, contrary to established legal principles. The court noted that the assessing authority's actions contravened the law and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court decided to quash exhibit P14, the assessment order, considering the clear breach of legal requirements and principles of natural justice.

In the judgment, it was decided that notice to the fourth respondent was unnecessary given the relief being granted. The court directed the fifth respondent to conduct the assessment process, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard and completing the assessment within six weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. The petitioner was instructed to cooperate for the prompt resolution of the case. The writ petition was disposed of without notice to the fourth respondent, with exhibit P14 being quashed, and directions issued for a lawful assessment process to be followed.