2018 (2) TMI 1781 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Re-opening of assessment - reversal of ITC - mis-match occurred in transaction - calling for the records on the file of the respondent dated 20.12.2017 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 - Held that - The issue is covered by the decision in the case of M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where the Court has directed the Assessing Officer to evaluate a centralised mechanism exclusively to deal with the cases of mismatch and to do some exercise, before issuing a notice. Considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has to re-do the assessment, in view of the above said decision of this Court, this writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set side - matters are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment commencing from the stage of issuing notice of proposal - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner filed writ petitions challenging assessment records for multiple years, citing lack of jurisdiction, authority, and violation of natural justice. The main issue is a mismatch, previously addressed in a judgment directing the Assessing Officer to establish a centralized mechanism to handle such cases before issuing notices. Respondent agrees to reassess based on the previous court order.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking Certiorari to quash assessment records for various years, alleging lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. The main issue raised is a mismatch, previously addressed in a judgment directing the Assessing Officer to establish a centralized mechanism to handle such cases before issuing notices. The court had previously directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a thorough inquiry in consultation with the Assessing Officers of the other end dealer and to evolve a centralized mechanism exclusively for dealing with mismatch cases. The court emphasized the need for a fair and reasonable procedure to afford dealers an opportunity to present their case. The court also noted that the petitioners are not entitled to raise the plea of limitation when fresh show cause notices are issued. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, agreed to reassess the cases based on the court's previous order.

The respondent, through the Government Advocate, acknowledged the court's previous judgment and agreed that the Assessing Officer should re-do the assessment following the guidelines and procedures outlined in the earlier decision. The court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matters back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. The Assessing Officer is directed to commence the reassessment process from the stage of issuing the notice of proposal, following the court's guidelines. The Assessing Officer is also instructed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner before finalizing the assessment order. The court mandated that the reassessment process should be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.