2017 (6) TMI 986 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - in the order of assessment, there is a difference between the Annexure-I filed by the petitioner and Annexure-II filed by the other end dealer - Held that - the Assessing officer has only shown one transaction as an sample case to conclude the assessment against the petitioner. Such kind of approach cant be accepted as proper and legally sustainable one. If the Assessing Officer has found that there are differences between the Annexure-I filed by the petitioner and Annexure-II filed by the other end dealers, he should give all those details in the order of assessment with discussion and findings. Showing one example alone is not sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the Assessing Officer - it is for the Assessing Officer to look into all those aspects and re-do the assessment, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in assessment order regarding Annexure-I and Annexure-II
- Lack of personal hearing before concluding assessment

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the assessment order for the year 2012-13 due to a discrepancy between Annexure-I and Annexure-II. The counsel argued that the Assessing Officer did not provide a personal hearing, only cited one transaction as an example, and failed to disclose all disputed transactions. The Department acknowledged the lack of personal hearing and mentioned manipulated transactions by the other dealer. However, the assessment order did not address all discrepancies comprehensively.

2. The judge noted that the assessment was solely based on one transaction and lacked a detailed discussion on all discrepancies. The absence of a personal hearing further weakened the assessment process. Referring to a previous judgment, the judge highlighted the need for a centralized mechanism to handle mismatch cases efficiently. The court directed the Assessing Officer to re-assess the case, provide a personal hearing, and follow the guidelines set in the previous judgment within eight weeks.

3. The court emphasized that a single transaction example is insufficient for a valid assessment and stressed the importance of a thorough investigation into all discrepancies. The judge reiterated the necessity of a fair procedure, including personal hearings and detailed disclosure of findings. The Assessing Officer was instructed to re-evaluate the case following the prescribed guidelines within the specified timeframe.

4. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the assessment order, and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The officer was directed to conduct a comprehensive review, provide a personal hearing, and adhere to the guidelines outlined in the previous judgment. The court closed the miscellaneous petitions without imposing any costs.