2009 (10) TMI 883 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Best judgment assessment challenged - order of assessment passed on July 7, 2009 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the assessment year 2003-2004 challenged - Held that - As disclosed by the file produced by the respondent that the petitioner did not challenge the first assessment order dated November 7, 2007 and that he had been successfully dodging service of notices and orders. The order dated July 7, 2009 impugned in this writ petition is only a second revision order, after an additional fact was brought to notice by the Deputy Commissioner. In such circumstances, there is no justification for this court to interfere with the order of assessment dated July 7, 2009, especially when the best of judgment assessment order dated November 7, 2007 has not even been challenged and when the petitioner can never contend violation of natural justice. However, the petitioner has lost the opportunity of filing a statutory appeal against both the orders dated November 7, 2007 and July 7, 2009, therefore the petitioner can be given an opportunity to file an appeal, since allowing the petitioner to file an appeal, would also ensures the collection of some portion of the tax for the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the assessment year 2003-2004.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in edible oil and oil seeds, challenged an assessment order passed on July 7, 2009, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the assessment year 2003-2004. The registration of the petitioner was cancelled due to failure to file returns, leading to a reassessment notice alleging undisclosed purchases of palmolein. The petitioner claimed objections were filed but not considered before the impugned order was passed. The respondent contended that prior notices were issued, and the assessment was finalized on best judgment basis in November 2007. The petitioner disputed knowledge of the earlier assessment order, leading to a detailed examination of the communication history between the parties.

The respondent produced evidence showing that notices were sent to the petitioner's addresses, with acknowledgments and returns indicating delivery attempts. Despite the petitioner's claims of ignorance, the file revealed a series of communication attempts and responses from the petitioner. The respondent issued a fresh notice in December 2008 regarding additional purchases of palmolein, which the petitioner acknowledged personally in January 2009. The subsequent order dated July 7, 2009, was attempted to be served but refused by the petitioner, who later questioned the validity of the notice.

The court found that the petitioner had not challenged the initial assessment order from November 2007 and had avoided service of subsequent notices and orders. The order from July 7, 2009 was considered a second revision order based on new information provided by the Deputy Commissioner. The court noted that the petitioner had missed the opportunity to file a statutory appeal against both orders. As a result, the court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 15 days to ensure the opportunity for appeal and potential tax collection for the Revenue. The court emphasized that all contentions could be raised in the appeal process, concluding the judgment with no costs awarded and closure of the related petition.