2013 (7) TMI 893 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

The authorities to send a notice to the petitioner that some information were collected from internet, the petitioner was going to be assessed on the basis of such information.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of ex parte assessment order under the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011.
2. Compliance with notice requirements under Rule 31 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Rules, 2006.
3. Allegation of incorrect assessment due to lack of opportunity to explain factual position.
4. Dismissal of appeal due to non-deposit of statutory amount.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of ex parte assessment order
The petitioner challenged the ex parte assessment order, arguing that the order was framed without proper jurisdiction as it was done within 30 days from the date of service of notice. The petitioner contended that the assessment order should be set aside, and the matter should be remitted back to the assessing officer for a fresh order after providing an opportunity for a hearing. The State opposed this, stating that the petitioner had failed to appear before the assessing officer despite multiple notices. The Court found that the notices were served before the hearing dates, but it noted a lack of compliance with the 30-day notice requirement as per Rule 31 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Rules.

Issue 2: Compliance with notice requirements
Rule 31 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Rules mandates that the notice for assessment should be served not less than 30 days from the date of service. The Court observed that while earlier notices were issued and served, the transmission of the case to a different authority caused a delay in the notices reaching the petitioner. The Court highlighted that the authority failed to issue notices within the stipulated 30-day period, emphasizing the importance of providing adequate time for compliance with assessment procedures.

Issue 3: Allegation of incorrect assessment
The petitioner argued that the assessment was based on information collected through internet sources without giving them an opportunity to explain the factual position. The Court agreed that the petitioner should have been informed about the basis of assessment derived from internet sources and granted an opportunity to present their case properly. The Court emphasized the necessity of allowing the petitioner to provide clarifications before finalizing the assessment order.

Issue 4: Dismissal of appeal
The petitioner's appeal was dismissed due to non-deposit of the statutory amount required for the appeal process. The Court noted the petitioner's difficulty in obtaining the necessary sanction for deposit and acknowledged the dismissal of the appeal. However, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the assessing officer, submit contentions, and allowed for a fresh assessment order to be framed in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court remitted the case to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, for a fresh assessment order, emphasizing the importance of providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard and clarifying that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.