2013 (8) TMI 260 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty - Petitioner contends opportunity of hearing not given - Held that - first revision filed by the petitioner against the initial order of assessment was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the assessing officer for reassessment after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and examining the records. It is apparent from a perusal of the second order of assessment that on remand the assessing officer took up the matter and issued several notices to the petitioner, but he chose not to appear before the assessing officer on any of the dates for which notices were issued. It is further apparent that though the petitioner did not participate in the assessment proceedings inspite of notices the assessing officer, after examining the records and the documents filed alongwith the return reassessed the petitioner by giving cogent reasons for imposing tax and penalty - it is also apparent from a perusal of the order passed by the revisional authority that the revisional authority has taken the aforesaid facts into consideration and thereafter affirmed the order of the assessing authority and while doing so the authority has observed that the petitioner, in spite of being given a second opportunity to place all the relevant documents before the assessing officer and to bring to his notice all the issues that he wanted to bring to his notice, chose not to do so and in such circumstances no interference was called for in the order of assessment - repeated opportunities cannot be given to the petitioner to place documents before the authorities. The assessing authority and the revisional authority have examined the documents and thereafter the assessment has been done, which does not call for or warrant any interference - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment order under M.P. Commercial Tax Act 1994.
2. Petitioner's absence during assessment proceedings.
3. Relevance of previous revision order.
4. Request for repeated opportunities by the petitioner.

Issue 1: Revision of assessment order under M.P. Commercial Tax Act 1994
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act 1994, challenged an order passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Jabalpur. The petitioner was assessed for the period 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, and tax with penalty was imposed. A revision was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed, setting aside the initial assessment order and remanding the matter for reassessment. Subsequently, the assessing authority reaffirmed the assessment order, leading to another revision by the petitioner, which was dismissed. The petitioner sought the revisional authority to reexamine the matter on merits, citing previous court decisions in support.

Issue 2: Petitioner's absence during assessment proceedings
The petitioner's counsel argued that the revisional authority dismissed the revision due to the petitioner's absence during assessment proceedings. Despite multiple notices, the petitioner did not participate in the assessment process, leading to the imposition of tax and penalty by the assessing officer based on the records and documents available. The revisional authority considered these facts and upheld the assessment order, noting the petitioner's failure to engage in the proceedings despite opportunities provided.

Issue 3: Relevance of previous revision order
The court analyzed the previous revision order and found that the assessing officer had given the petitioner a chance to present their case and examine the records. However, the petitioner did not avail of this opportunity and remained absent during the assessment proceedings. The court noted that the revisional authority had already remanded and reexamined the matter once, and the petitioner's repeated requests for further opportunities were deemed unwarranted.

Issue 4: Request for repeated opportunities by the petitioner
The court emphasized that granting repeated opportunities to the petitioner to submit documents would not be justified. Both the assessing authority and the revisional authority had thoroughly examined the documents and records before making their decisions. The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for additional chances to present evidence, highlighting that the petitioner failed to take advantage of the initial opportunity provided during the first revision process. The court found no merit in the petitioner's petition and accordingly dismissed it.