2019 (10) TMI 1554 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - passing of impugned order in total non-application of mind to the objections filed by the petitioner that too by a different officer, when the objections were filed before another officer - objections are over ruled by single line observation that they are not acceptable - HELD THAT - It is seen that the previous Assessing Officer issued notices of proposal to the petitioner on 28.11.2016 and 13.04.2017. It is further seen that the petitioner filed their detailed reply on 06.01.2017 and 24.04.2017. The Assessment Orders referred to the filing of such reply and in fact extracted the same also in the Orders of Assessment - However, the fact remains that though, such reply was filed as early as in the month of January and April of 2017, the impugned Orders of Assessment were passed in the month of June, 2019, admittedly, by a different Assessing Officer also by not providing any personal hearing to the petitioner. Perusal of the Assessment Orders also supports the claim of the petitioner that the same came to be passed without discussing any of the objections raised by the petitioner and giving independent reasonings and findings on those objections. This Court is satisfied to set aside the impugned order only for the purpose of remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and also by considering the objections already filed by them on 06.01.2017 and 24.04.2017 - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for multiple years - Non-application of mind by Assessing Officer - Lack of detailed discussion on objections - Lack of personal hearing for petitioner - Remand for fresh assessment.

Analysis:
The three writ petitions were filed challenging the Assessment Orders for the years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, alleging that the orders were passed without proper application of mind to the objections raised by the petitioner. The main contention was that the assessment was conducted by a different officer who did not provide a detailed discussion on the objections filed by the petitioner, merely stating that they were not acceptable without providing independent findings or reasoning. The petitioner's counsel emphasized these points during the hearing.

Upon review, it was noted that the previous Assessing Officer had issued notices and the petitioner had filed detailed replies well before the assessment orders were passed. However, the impugned orders were issued by a different Assessing Officer in 2019, without granting the petitioner a personal hearing or addressing the objections raised in detail. The Assessment Orders did not provide a thorough analysis of the objections, supporting the petitioner's claim of lack of proper consideration.

In light of these findings, the Court decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing and consider the objections filed in 2017 before passing new orders. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the objections, leaving it to the Assessing Officer to evaluate them and issue fresh orders in accordance with the law.

As a result, all three writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were annulled, and the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for a reevaluation within eight weeks from the date of the Court's order. No costs were awarded, and the related miscellaneous petitions were closed.