2018 (9) TMI 2074 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - proper notices not served on the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Though it is contended before this Court that there was no proper notices served on the petitioner, except making such vague averment, the petitioner has not substantiated such allegation, by placing any material facts. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer has categorically found that the notices of proposal were served on the petitioner on 22.11.2016 and 28.02.2017 respectively. Apart from the said fact, it is also seen that the Assessing Officer has given a factual finding that the petitioner has not filed either their monthly return or annual return for the respective assessment year. When such being the factual findings rendered by the Assessing Officer, in the absence of any other contra materials placed before this Court disputing such factual aspects, this Court is of the view that it is for the petitioner to approach the next fact finding authority, by filing a regular appeal, so that all the factual contentions raised by the petitioner, challenging the impugned assessment orders can be considered by the said fact finding authority viz., the First Appellate Authority. Without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, both these writ petitions are disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to file such statutory appeals within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by complying with other statutory requirements for filing those appeals.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 due to non-filing of returns and imposition of tax and penalty.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment orders for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, disputing the imposition of tax and penalty. The Assessing Officer found that the petitioner failed to file both monthly and annual returns for the respective years, despite receiving notices of proposal. The petitioner did not respond to the notices or provide any material facts to support their claim of improper service. The Court noted the factual findings of the Assessing Officer and directed the petitioner to pursue the matter through a regular appeal to the First Appellate Authority. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and granted the petitioner three weeks to file statutory appeals, emphasizing that the Appellate Authority should assess the appeals independently and in compliance with the law. The Court clarified that it was not passing judgment on the assessment's correctness, leaving it to the petitioner to present their arguments before the Appellate Authority for a thorough review. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.