2017 (11) TMI 1691 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - case of petitioner is that petitioner s objections dated 10.06.2017 and 11.06.2017 respectively, though received by the Assessing Officer has not been taken note of and the assessment has been completed stating as if no objections have been received - Held that - When the dealer has produced the copy of the objections dated 10.06.2017 and 11.06.2017 respectively, wherein the Assessing Officer has signed and a seal has also been affixed, unless and until the Assessing Officer took a stand that it is a case of forgery, communication made by the officer to the learned Special Government Pleader has to be held to be factually incorrect. In the absence of any specific material to show that the objections filed by the dealer are not on record and in the absence of any denial of the signature and the seal affixed in the office copy of the objections dated 10.06.2017 and 11.06.2017 respectively, this Court is inclined to accept the case of the petitioner. Matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, who shall consider the petitioner s objections, afford an opportunity of personal hearing and re-do the assessment in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned assessment orders based on alleged non-consideration of objections by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act and CST Act, challenged assessment orders for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17, claiming that their objections dated 10.06.2017 and 11.06.2017 were not considered by the Assessing Officer, despite being received. The key contention was that the assessment was completed as if no objections were received.

The Special Government Pleader, representing the respondent, requested time to obtain instructions from officials. An email from an official stated that no objections were filed by the dealer and no records were available. However, the response was ambiguous, allowing for multiple interpretations. The Court emphasized the need for a clear response, especially when the dealer had produced copies of the objections with the Assessing Officer's signature and seal. Given the lack of evidence to support the claim that objections were not on record and the absence of any denial regarding the authenticity of the objections, the Court inclined to accept the petitioner's version.

Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to review the petitioner's objections, provide a chance for a personal hearing, and conduct the assessment in compliance with the law. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.