2015 (2) TMI 1377 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of assessment order - it is alleged that the petitioner has not reported the actual sale turnover to the Sales Tax Department for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 - reports furnished by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer Vijayawada are not furnished to him - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - When the order of assessment is solely based on the material and reports submitted by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer Vijayawada it is obligatory on the part of authorities to supply such material along with the notice of assessment and invite objections from the petitioner before passing the revised assessment order. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the respondent/Respondent shall furnish to the petitioner the reports/material supplied by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer Vijayawada and thereafter pass appropriate orders afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from today - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 based on lack of natural justice principles in the process.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested an assessment order dated 29.03.2014, under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005, alleging non-reporting of actual sales turnover for 2008-09 and 2009-10. The order was based on reports from the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Vijayawada. The petitioner, a successful sand quarry bidder, argued that the assessing officer did not provide the reports, violating principles of natural justice. Citing a previous judgment, the petitioner sought invalidation of the assessment order.

The government pleader, representing the respondent, acknowledged that the reports were not shared with the petitioner before the assessment order was issued. The court emphasized that when an assessment order relies solely on external reports, it is mandatory to provide such material to the assessee for objections before finalizing the assessment. Referring to the previous judgment cited by the petitioner, the court agreed that the failure to supply the material rendered the assessment order invalid.

Consequently, the court set aside the assessment order and directed a fresh consideration by the respondent. The respondent was instructed to furnish the reports/material from the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer to the petitioner and then make a new decision promptly, preferably within four months. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and any pending applications were closed.