2018 (4) TMI 1780 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - grievance of the petitioner is that they are 100 per cent. exporters and that the very same assessing officer has accepted this in respect of several assessment years under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and that therefore he cannot take a different stand - HELD THAT - It appears that it is only after the petitioner attempted to revive the company that the impugned order was served. In such circumstances, we think that the delay and laches are properly explained. On instructions, it was stated by the learned special standing counsel that the very same assessing officer has passed orders in the case of the very same assessee in relation to the previous years under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, confirming that he is a 100 per cent. exporter. Therefore, it was within the knowledge of the assessing officer to take note of the previous assessment orders before coming to the conclusion that he did in the impugned order, despite the failure of the petitioner to file objections - In cases where the objections are not filed to the show-cause notices and the assessees do not participate in the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer should normally look into the material available on record. Therefore, the petitioner may be given one opportunity. The matter remanded back to the first respondent - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to assessment order under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; Delay in responding to show-cause notices; Allegation of being a 100% exporter; Failure to file objections; Remand of the matter.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, alleging that they are 100% exporters and that the assessing officer had accepted this in previous years. However, it was noted that the petitioner did not respond to show-cause notices, and the impugned order could not be served on them. The petitioner explained the delay in approaching the court due to sustaining losses and attempting to revive their export business. The court found the delay and laches properly explained in this context.

The court observed that the assessing officer had passed orders confirming the petitioner as a 100% exporter in previous years. Despite the petitioner's failure to file objections, the court held that in such cases, the assessing officer should consider the material available on record. Therefore, the court decided to allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remand the matter back to the assessing officer for further proceedings.

The court directed the petitioner to file a reply within fifteen days from the date of the order along with necessary documents. The assessing officer was instructed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing and then pass fresh orders. Any pending interlocutory applications in the writ petition were to be closed, and no costs were awarded in this matter.