2019 (10) TMI 1375 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Time limitation of assessment order expired - impugned order is dated 29.3.2019, the same has been despatched only on 4.9.2019 and was received by the petitioner on 23.9.2019 - It was submitted that the limitation for passing the said assessment order expired on 31.3.2019 and it appears that with a view to get over limitation, the impugned order is ante dated - HELD THAT - Issue Notice returnable on 28th November, 2019. By way of ad-interim relief, the impugned order dated 29.3.2019 (Annexure-A to the petition) is hereby stayed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ante-dating of the impugned order to overcome limitation.
2. Transfer of assessment proceedings without proper notice.
3. Lack of opportunity of hearing leading to a breach of natural justice.

Issue 1: Ante-dating of the impugned order to overcome limitation
The petitioner argued that the impugned order, dated 29.3.2019, was dispatched on 4.9.2019 and received on 23.9.2019, after the limitation for passing the assessment order expired on 31.3.2019. The petitioner alleged that the order was ante-dated to circumvent the limitation period. Citing the Supreme Court decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co., it was contended that the order was improperly backdated.

Issue 2: Transfer of assessment proceedings without proper notice
The petitioner contended that the original jurisdiction lay with the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax-Ghatak 39, who had issued a notice under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Subsequently, the proceedings were informally transferred to the Officer of Ghatak-41 without the requisite written order from the Commissioner, as mandated by section 17 of the GVAT Act. The absence of a formal notice to the petitioner under section 17(1) rendered the officer of Ghatak-41 incompetent to pass the impugned order.

Issue 3: Lack of opportunity of hearing leading to a breach of natural justice
The petitioner highlighted that no opportunity for a hearing was provided before passing the impugned order. Although the petitioner was asked to be present for a hearing on 31.3.2019, the order was purportedly issued on 29.3.2019, indicating a violation of the principles of natural justice. The failure to grant a fair hearing before the order was issued was emphasized as a significant flaw in the proceedings.

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner, the court issued a notice returnable on 28th November 2019. As an interim measure, the court stayed the impugned order dated 29.3.2019 and allowed for direct service. The issues raised regarding the ante-dating of the order, improper transfer of proceedings, and the lack of a hearing opportunity were considered substantial grounds for further examination and legal review.