2010 (6) TMI 726 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether rejection of the rectification application by an endorsement dated October 16, 2007 is just and proper? Held that - All the authorities have failed to proceed in accordance with the Act and Rules. The manner in which they have proceeded and concluded the proceedings accepting the xerox copies of form Nos. 8 and 9, without cross verification in the register maintained in the Department for having received the original form Nos. 8 and 9 does not inspire the confidence of this court. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered nor verified as to whether the procedure prescribed under the statute has been followed. Thus in view of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and for not conducting proper enquiry in accordance with law and not deciding the matter strictly in accordance with the material on record, we are of the considered view that such orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. Taking all these relevant factors into consideration, it would suffice for this court to remand the matter before the original authority, i.e., before the assessing officer to decide the matter afresh, strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against assessment order under Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Allegations of non-compliance with statutory procedures and principles of natural justice.
3. Challenge to the rejection of rectification application.
4. Review of orders passed by different authorities.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered dealer engaged in food catering under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, opted for the composition scheme under section 17(4) of the Act. Despite filing necessary forms and returns, the assessment order passed by the third respondent levied tax at a higher rate without considering the notification dated March 31, 2006. The appellant challenged this order citing non-compliance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, leading to the appeal before the court.

2. The court found that the authorities failed to follow proper procedures and did not verify the authenticity of the documents submitted by the appellant. The assessing officer did not provide an opportunity to substantiate the case, violating the principles of natural justice. Due to these procedural irregularities, the court concluded that the orders passed could not be sustained and needed to be quashed.

3. The rejection of the rectification application by the assessing officer without due consideration of the appellant's submissions further highlighted the lack of procedural fairness in the proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of conducting a proper inquiry in accordance with the law and ensuring strict compliance with statutory requirements.

4. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, the court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the orders passed by the revisional authority, assessing officer, and the endorsement issued. The matter was remitted back to the jurisdictional assessing officer for a fresh decision in compliance with the Act and Rules, emphasizing the need for a fair and expeditious resolution while affording reasonable opportunities to both parties.