2009 (3) TMI 967 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of effective opportunity to be heard.
2. Non-disclosure of the basis for estimation of Gross Turnover (GT) and Taxable Sales and Purchases (TSPP).
3. Violation of the principle of natural justice in passing the best judgment assessment.
4. Refusal to admit additional evidence at the revisional stage.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Effective Opportunity to be Heard:
The petitioner argued that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case and produce books of accounts. The initial assessment was made ex parte due to the petitioner's non-appearance on the seventh adjourned date. The appellate authority confirmed this assessment, noting that the petitioner failed to appear despite six adjournments. The tribunal found that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunities but failed to avail them, leading to an ex parte decision.

2. Non-Disclosure of Basis for Estimation of GT and TSPP:
The petitioner contended that the estimation of GT and TSPP was arbitrary and lacked a disclosed basis. Rule 180 of the WBST Rules, 1995 mandates that the assessing authority record reasons for the best judgment assessment. The tribunal observed that the assessing authority failed to disclose the basis for determining the GT of sales and TSPP, thereby not adhering to the requirement of a reasoned judgment.

3. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice:
The petitioner claimed that the principle of natural justice was violated as the best judgment assessment was passed without proper reasoning. The tribunal agreed, stating that both the assessing and appellate authorities did not provide a reasoned basis for their judgments, which is essential under Rule 180 and Rule 242 of the WBST Rules, 1995.

4. Refusal to Admit Additional Evidence at the Revisional Stage:
The revisional authority dismissed the petitioner's application, refusing to admit additional evidence on the grounds that the petitioner failed to show cause for non-production at earlier stages. The tribunal highlighted that Rule 247 of the WBST Rules, 1995, which governs revisional proceedings, mandates the revisional authority to examine books of account, documents, and evidence produced by the petitioner. The tribunal found that the revisional authority erred in refusing to admit evidence, as Rule 247 allows for the consideration of additional evidence to ensure a fair decision.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the revisional authority committed an error in law by refusing to admit additional evidence and failing to provide a reasoned judgment. Consequently, the impugned revisional order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the revisional authority for fresh proceedings, allowing the petitioner to produce relevant books of account, documents, and evidence. The petitioner was directed to appear before the revisional authority on April 17, 2009, to obtain a new hearing date.