2014 (1) TMI 153 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Error in the date of order entered in the register Held that - The department has sufficiently explained the error in the dispatch register of the assessing authority - the dispatch register put a wrong date i.e. 4.3.2013 and the same date has been entered on the right side column of the order sheet against the date of dispatch i.e. 18.3.2013 as well as the dispatch register. The petitioner is unnecessarily capitalising on the mention of wrong dispatch date - He has participated in the proceedings before the assessing officer in which the order was passed on 15.3.2013 to re-open the assessment - The petitioner also received the notice dispatched by the assessing officer on 18.3.2013, on 22.3.2013 - All these dates are subsequent to the dates given in the dispatch register - It clearly shows that the dispatch clerk had committed an apparent error - the dispatch of notices is only a ministerial act, which does not affect the order passed by the competent authorities in the proceedings in which the petitioner had also participated - Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to re-assessment order and notices based on alleged backdating of documents.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a business entity, challenged a re-assessment order and related notices issued by the tax authorities. The petitioner contended that the documents were backdated to avoid limitations. The initial assessment was conducted for the year 2006-2007, focusing on alleged suppression of sales. The Additional Commissioner granted permission for re-assessment, leading to subsequent notices to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the dispatch date on the notices indicated backdating, suggesting manipulation by the tax department to circumvent time constraints.

The State respondents countered the petitioner's claims, providing a detailed account of the sequence of events leading to the re-assessment order. They explained that the process was initiated due to undisclosed sales by the petitioner. The State respondents maintained that the notices were dispatched on the correct date, refuting the petitioner's allegations of backdating. The State respondents also highlighted that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities to present their case during the re-assessment proceedings.

Upon examination, the court found discrepancies in the dispatch dates recorded by the assessing authority. However, the court noted that the petitioner had actively participated in the re-assessment process and received the notices within a reasonable timeframe. The court emphasized that the dispatch errors were clerical in nature and did not impact the validity of the re-assessment order or the notices. Additionally, the court highlighted that the dispatch of notices is a ministerial act and does not invalidate the decisions made by the competent authorities during the proceedings.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, indicating that the petitioner's emphasis on the dispatch dates was unwarranted. The court concluded that the petitioner's involvement in the re-assessment proceedings and timely receipt of notices superseded any minor discrepancies in the dispatch records.