2014 (9) TMI 1247 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of revised order of assessment passed - respondent concluded that there was no reply from the dealer - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Once it is found that what was sought by the petitioner was different from what was furnished to them, the petitioner cannot be found fault for not filing a full-fledged reply. Hence, the petitioner deserves one more opportunity. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration - Petition is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revised order of assessment post inspection by Enforcement Wing.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a revised order of assessment following an inspection by the Enforcement Wing. The petitioner contended that they were not provided with the report dated 3.6.2013 as requested, and instead, they were given the statement made by them during the inspection. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to provide a proper reply, leading the respondent to conclude that there was no response from the dealer. The court acknowledged that the petitioner should not be faulted for not filing a comprehensive reply when the information provided differed from what was requested. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to respond adequately.

The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to provide a copy of the report dated 3.6.2013 within a week of receiving the court's order. Subsequently, the petitioner was instructed to submit their objections to the proposal within two weeks of receiving the report. Following this, the respondent was mandated to grant a hearing to the petitioner and issue fresh orders. The court ruled that no costs were to be incurred in this matter, and consequently, the related miscellaneous petition was closed.