2017 (9) TMI 1538 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - principles of Natural Justice - Held that - the petitioner has stated in his representation / letter to the respondent that, their Zonal Office has been shifted to Gurgaon (Hariyana) and all the documents are available in the said Office, and requested for further four weeks time to produce the same. The respondent cannot disbelieve the said request, nor, there was any material available with the respondent, to come to conclusion that the statement of the petitioner was false - matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the year 1999-2000 based on violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the assessment order issued by the respondent, alleging a breach of natural justice principles due to the lack of opportunity to present documents. The respondent initially proposed assessment through a notice dated 16.02.2004, to which the petitioner responded with objections on various dates. Subsequently, a revised pre-assessment notice was issued on 25.05.2004, with a directive for the petitioner to submit objections within ten days. The petitioner, citing logistical challenges as their Zonal Office had relocated, requested an extension of four weeks to gather necessary documents. Despite submitting this request in person on 03.06.2004, the respondent proceeded with the assessment, claiming no objections were received.

In defense, the respondent, in comments dated 20.08.2008, denied receiving any request for additional time. The court noted the sequence of events, emphasizing the petitioner's timely responses to the initial notice and the subsequent logistical difficulties faced by the petitioner in gathering documents due to the Zonal Office relocation. The court highlighted the importance of granting reasonable time to assesses for filing objections, as per a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It was observed that the respondent had no basis to doubt the petitioner's request for an extension, as no evidence was presented to refute the petitioner's claim of submitting the request on time.

Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was granted eight weeks to file objections and produce necessary documents. The respondent was directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and conduct the assessment afresh in compliance with the law. No costs were awarded in this judgment, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.