2016 (9) TMI 1467 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural justice - Validity of order of assessment - Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - case of petitioner is that the Assessing Officer did not permit cross examination of witnesses, and therefore, the revised notice, dated 30. 11. 2004, has to be set aside. Whether the petitioner had a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses before the impugned assessment order was passed, in the light of the earlier direction issued by this Court, in W. P. No. 38521 of 2004, as it would bind the Assessing Officer? Held that - Apart from the statements gathered by the Assessment Circle Officer, the copy of which, has already been furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner has sought for other details, viz. , i) xerox copy of the application and other details when they applied for registration certificate, ii) the name of the Officer, who issued the certificate, iii) xerox copy of the ration card, iv) name of the Officer, who collected the renewal fee. , etc. - these documents are absolutely not germane to complete the assessment. That part, these are documents filed by other dealers and are kept on the file of the respondent, and he holds the same in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the details thereunder, which are personal to the concerned dealer, cannot be compelled to be furnished to the petitioner, even as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The direction issued by this Court, in W. P. No. 38521 of 2004, dated 07. 01. 2005, insofar it relates to furnishing of documents is concerned, the same has been complied with by the respondent, and the petitioner is not entitled for any more documents. With regard to giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses who are examined by the respondents. This, of course, has not been complied with. Therefore, to that extent, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of relief. The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order for the assessment years 2002-03; Non-compliance with court direction to furnish documents and allow cross-examination of witnesses.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, challenged the assessment order dated 28.02.2005 for the years 2002-03. Initially, a writ petition was filed due to the Assessing Officer's refusal to permit cross-examination of witnesses. The court directed the respondent to provide necessary documents to the petitioner and allow cross-examination of witnesses. However, the petitioner returned, alleging non-compliance with the court's order.

Upon reviewing the petitioner's request for specific documents, it was found that most documents were not furnished except for the statements gathered by the Assessment Circle Officer. The respondent claimed all documents were provided as per the court's directive. The central issue was whether the petitioner was given a fair chance to cross-examine witnesses before the assessment order was finalized, as mandated by the court's prior direction in the earlier writ petition.

The court examined the documents requested by the petitioner and concluded that certain details, such as the application for registration certificate, ration card copies, and renewal fee collection information, were not essential for the assessment process. These documents belonged to other dealers and were held in a fiduciary capacity by the respondent, making them non-compellable under the Right to Information Act.

The court determined that while the respondent had complied with the directive to furnish documents, the failure to allow cross-examination of witnesses was a breach. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The court directed the respondent to allow cross-examination of specific persons whose statements were crucial for the assessment within a specified timeframe to rectify the non-compliance.

In summary, the court partially allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for cross-examination in assessment proceedings. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to court directives and ensuring procedural fairness in administrative actions related to tax assessments.