2018 (4) TMI 462 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reassessment - occurrence of mismatch - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where The Court has directed the Assessing Officer to evaluate a centralised mechanism exclusively to deal with the cases of mismatch and to do some exercise, before issuing a notice. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment commencing from the stage of issuing notice of proposal - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking Writ of Certiorari to quash assessment records for the assessment year 2009-10 due to mismatch issue.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the assessment records for the assessment year 2009-10, citing a mismatch issue. The petitioner's counsel argued that the matter is similar to a previous decision where the court directed the Assessing Officer to establish a centralized mechanism to address mismatch cases before issuing notices. The court emphasized the need for a central mechanism to prevent multiple proceedings and ensure a fair process for dealers. As a result, the court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the matters to the respective Assessing Officers for a fresh assessment. The court highlighted the importance of a holistic approach and directed the Department to evolve a fair procedure that allows dealers to present their case effectively.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged the court's previous decision and agreed that the Assessing Officer must re-do the assessment following the guidelines set in the earlier order. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2017, and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer was instructed to initiate the assessment process from issuing a notice of proposal, adhere to the court's guidelines, and provide the petitioner with a personal hearing before finalizing the assessment order. The court mandated that the entire process should be completed within eight weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order, with no costs imposed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.