2018 (10) TMI 1362 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - assessment year 2011-2012 - mis-match, based on the sales details gathered from the Departmental Website - Held that - The issue is covered by the decision in the case of M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that this Court is fully convinced that the procedure adopted by the respondent, Assessing Officers in all these cases are half baked attempts, which have not yielded results and these cases are before this Court or before the Appellate Authorities and all that the Assessing Officers can record is that they have issued show cause notices or passed orders reversing the Input Tax Credit with no appreciable impact on the revenue collection. Thus, this Court is of the view that the Assessing Officer has to re-do the issue, by following certain guidelines/procedures issued in the above said decision of this Court - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge against assessment order for the year 2011-2012 based on mis-match issue; Re-doing assessment following guidelines from a previous court decision.

Analysis:

1. Assessment Order Challenge: The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 29.06.2018 for the assessment year 2011-2012, primarily focusing on a mis-match issue identified by the Assessing Officer. The disputed purchase mentioned in the assessment was allegedly not accounted for or reported in the returns filed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner argued that a previous court decision (WP.No.105 of 2016) had provided guidelines on how such mis-match issues should be addressed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the matter should be sent back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment following the procedures and guidelines outlined in the previous court decision.

2. Mis-Match Issue: The main issue in this case revolved around the mis-match identified by the Assessing Officer based on sales details obtained from the Departmental Website. The Assessing Officer claimed that the disputed purchases were not reflected in the returns filed by the petitioner. The court acknowledged that the mis-match issue had been previously addressed in a decision dated 01.03.2017, where the court emphasized the need for a centralized mechanism to handle such discrepancies effectively. The court directed the Assessing Officers to conduct thorough inquiries, consult with officers from the other end dealer, and evolve a centralized mechanism to deal with mis-match cases. The court stressed the importance of a fair procedure that allows dealers to present their case and prove their entitlement to concessions or set-offs.

3. Court Decision: After hearing both parties, the court concluded that the Assessing Officer should re-examine the issue of mis-match following the guidelines and procedures established in the previous court decision dated 01.03.2017. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the assessment order, and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer was instructed to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing and complete the re-assessment within four weeks from the date of receiving the court's order. No costs were awarded in this decision.

In summary, the court's judgment focused on addressing the mis-match issue in the assessment order by directing the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment in accordance with the guidelines outlined in a previous court decision. The court emphasized the importance of a centralized mechanism to handle mis-match cases effectively and ensure a fair process for dealers to present their explanations.