2019 (5) TMI 1451 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - Power of Review - Section 74B (5) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - ground on which such review power was exercised was that in the original assessment certain C forms furnished by Paras Enterprises of Panipat, Haryana formed the basis of the claim for refund - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the Respondents is prepared to withdraw the impugned orders, subject to the Petitioner appearing before the AVATO and being heard afresh in respect of the assessments for the period in question. The impugned order dated 29th January 2018 passed by the AVATO is hereby set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of order by AVATO under Section 74B (5) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 based on fictitious firm's C forms - Petitioner's reliance on previous court orders for review process - Respondents' willingness to withdraw orders subject to fresh hearing before AVATO.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the Petitioner's challenge to an order by the Assistant Value Added Tax Officer (AVATO) under Section 74B (5) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, which reviewed and directed the Petitioner to pay a substantial amount based on C forms from a fictitious firm. The Petitioner contested this order, citing a previous court judgment in a similar case that emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing to the Assessee before canceling an assessment order. The Respondents, in response, expressed readiness to withdraw the impugned orders on the condition that the Petitioner would appear before the AVATO for a fresh hearing regarding the assessments in question.

The Court, after considering the arguments, set aside the AVATO's order dated 29th January 2018. However, specific directions were issued for the subsequent proceedings: the Petitioner was instructed to appear before the AVATO for a fresh hearing on the assessments for the relevant quarters. Additionally, any material against the Petitioner mentioned in the Department's counter affidavit was to be provided to the Petitioner for explanation. The AVATO was mandated to pass a reasoned order by a specified date, and the decision on the refund due to the Petitioner would be based on this fresh decision. The judgment also allowed the Petitioner to seek legal remedies if the outcome was adverse, emphasizing that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the contentions of either party, leaving them to be addressed by the AVATO in the new order.

Ultimately, the petition was disposed of with the outlined directions, ensuring a fair and transparent process for the Petitioner in light of the circumstances. The judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in tax assessment matters, emphasizing the right to a hearing and due process in such proceedings.