2018 (2) TMI 1603 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - power of AO to reopen the assessment- Held that - the petitioner need not have any apprehension to go before the Assessing Officer and submit their defense. This is so because the law mandates that the Assessing Officer being an independent authority has to exercise his statutory power uninfluenced by any observation or direction that my be issued by the superior officer. No Superior Officer can compel him to do the assessment in a particular manner. This is why he has been termed as independent authority under the provisions of the Act. The writ petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioners to submit their objection to the impugned notices within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after which, the second respondent shall fix a date for personal hearing and afford an opportunity to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Impugned notices for assessment years 2002-2003 to 2009-2010, 2012-2013 to 2014-2015; Reopening of assessment under erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act based on inspection under TNVAT Act; Jurisdiction to reopen assessments completed under TNGST Act; Independence of Assessing Officer in decision-making; Compliance with legal procedures in assessment process.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged notices issued by the respondents for various assessment years, following an inspection where tax discrepancies were noted. The first respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, conducted the inspection and sought a reply from the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's request for more time to respond after receiving seized records, the second respondent, the Assessing Officer, issued impugned notices proposing to revise turnover for all the assessment years. The petitioner argued that reopening assessments under the TNVAT Act for years previously completed under the TNGST Act was improper.

The court emphasized the independence of the Assessing Officer, stating that he must make decisions uninfluenced by superior officers. The court highlighted that the Assessing Officer should consider the petitioner's explanations independently and not act as a mouthpiece for enforcement officers. The court directed the petitioners to submit objections to the notices within 15 days, after which a personal hearing should be scheduled by the second respondent. The second respondent was instructed to make a decision unbiased by enforcement officer observations and address legal issues regarding proposed reassessments completed under the TNGST Act.

In conclusion, the court emphasized the importance of the Assessing Officer's independence in decision-making and directed a fair assessment process for the petitioners. The court's judgment focused on ensuring compliance with legal procedures and safeguarding the petitioner's rights during the assessment proceedings.