2017 (1) TMI 1797 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Principles of natural justice - challenge to SCN was rejected by this court giving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and directing the Assessing Officer to pass orders after giving sufficient opportunity - HELD THAT - The challenge was rejected by this court by an order dated 23.01.2017 giving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. But unfortunately the respondents completed the assessment and passed the order on the very next day namely on 24.01.2017. Therefore contending that the liberty granted by this court has been rendered nugatory the petitioner ha s come up with the present writ petition - In the order passed by this court on 23.01.2017 rejecting the challenge to the show cause notice the time is granted to the petitioner to submit their objections and the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the same giving an opportunity of personal hearing and then pass final orders. The said order could not become a paper order. The impugned assessment order is liable to be set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to show cause notice rejection and subsequent assessment order challenge.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 08.12.2016 through a writ petition, which was rejected by the court on 23.01.2017. The court granted the petitioner time to submit objections and directed the Assessing Officer to consider them and provide a personal hearing before passing final orders. However, the assessment order was passed the next day on 24.01.2017, rendering the liberty granted by the court nugatory. The petitioner filed a new writ petition challenging this assessment order, seeking to set it aside.

The court noted that the proceedings initiated were for the recovery of luxury tax allegedly collected by the petitioner, pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in a contempt petition. The respondent argued that the petitioner should not benefit from raising the plea of limitation due to the order granting time. However, the court agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the current proceedings were not for assessment but for recovery, and therefore, the question of limitation did not arise. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order and directing the Assessing Officer to follow the directions given in the previous writ petition. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions in the current writ petition were closed.