2010 (5) TMI 755 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the petitioner had been supplied with the documents in the nature of report of the Assistant Commissioner, letter of the Assistant Commissioner as well as report of the investigation team on which the revising authority had placed reliance while passing the orders impugned before it? Held that - When the petitioner is giving up its right to be supplied with the copies of the report of the Assistant Commissioner, letter written by the Assistant Commissioner as well as reports of the investigation teams which had visited different States of the country on which reliance had been placed by the revising authority, as well as the opportunity to deal with the same, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the prayer made in the petition is accepted. The petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated July 21, 2009 made by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside only because of the petitioner waiving its right as recorded hereinbefore. It is made clear that as it is the impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Revision Application Nos. 95, 96 and 97 of 2007 are restored to the file of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the matters afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders by the petitioner before the Tribunal regarding purchases from certain dealers, disallowed claims, remand to revising authority for fresh consideration, reliance on documentary evidence, waiver of right to copies of investigation reports, legal infirmity in Tribunal's order, restoration of revision applications, opportunity of hearing for the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing edible oil, challenged assessment orders for various periods before the Tribunal due to disallowed claims of purchases from certain dealers. The revising authority disallowed claims from one dealer, leading to reduced refunds for specific periods. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration based on documentary evidence, citing lack of clarity on whether the petitioner received copies of investigation reports. The petitioner argued against the remand, stating readiness to proceed without the documents, emphasizing the Tribunal's duty to decide based on existing records.

The Tribunal's decision to remand was based on the principle of natural justice, ensuring the petitioner's right to a fair hearing regarding documents relied upon by the revising authority. The petitioner, however, waived the right to copies of the reports, leading to the Tribunal quashing its order solely due to the petitioner's waiver. The Tribunal's order was found legally sound, with the petitioner's waiver causing no prejudice to the respondents. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the revision applications were restored for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing for the petitioner.

The court clarified that its decision did not delve into the case's merits but focused on the procedural aspect. The petitioner's waiver of the right to copies of investigation reports played a crucial role in the court's decision to quash the Tribunal's order. The restoration of the revision applications aimed to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity for reconsideration without raising contentions regarding non-supply of specific documents. The court's ruling emphasized upholding the principles of natural justice while maintaining procedural integrity in the legal proceedings.