2020 (3) TMI 1093 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the condition of pre-deposit - non-application of mind - HELD THAT - The Tribunal, after considering the records relating to assessment, passed Ext.P2 order dated 29.03.2010, wherein the Tribunal found that both, the contentions raised by the assessee and the arguments put forth by the Revenue, have not been considered by the authorities below - The Tribunal therefore remanded the matter solely for the purpose of giving the assessee and the Revenue an opportunity to reiterate their contentions with supporting evidences and to enable the assessing authority to pass a speaking order considering all the aspects. A reading of Ext.P9 would show that the Fast Track Assessment Team, after narrating the factual sequences, only recorded the contentions of the assessee - The manner in which the Fast Track Assessment Team has passed Ext.P9 order is not justifiable. The remand as per Ext.P2 order by the Tribunal was for the sole requirement to consider and meet the objections raised by the petitioner. While the fact being so, the 3rd respondent-Fast Track Assessment Team could not have passed an order in the nature of Ext.P9, without answering the contentions raised by the petitioner. In such circumstances, Ext.P9 order is liable to be set aside. The case is remitted to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders, consideration of objections, limitation period for assessment

Analysis:

Challenge to Assessment Orders:
The petitioner sought to quash assessment orders and direct consideration of an appeal without pre-condition of deposit of tax demanded. The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, was assessed for the year 2000-2001 under the CST Act with tax due at &8377; 4,32,707/- and interest of &8377; 4,06,745/- demanded. After appeals and remand, a Fast Track Assessment Team issued Ext.P9 order assessing tax at &8377; 5,68,686/- and interest at &8377; 11,71,493/-. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 on grounds of non-speaking order and exceeding the limitation period for assessment under the CST Act.

Consideration of Objections:
The Tribunal remanded the assessment for the assessing authority to consider contentions with supporting evidence. However, Ext.P9 order by the Fast Track Assessment Team failed to address the objections raised by the petitioner. The order simply confirmed the proposal without justifying the decision based on the contentions presented. This lack of consideration rendered Ext.P9 order unjustifiable and liable to be set aside.

Limitation Period for Assessment:
The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings, including Ext.P7 notice issued after the limitation period, were illegal and unsustainable. The learned Senior Government Pleader referred to a judgment in Parisons Foods (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, supporting the Revenue's stance on the limitation issue. The Court, however, did not delve into this issue, as the entire matter required reconsideration by the authorities. Consequently, Ext.P9 order was set aside, and the case was remitted for reconsideration, leaving the limitation issue open for future determination.

In conclusion, the Court found the Ext.P9 order to be unjustifiable due to the failure to address the petitioner's objections adequately. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all contentions raised during assessment proceedings and emphasized the need for orders to be speaking and reasoned. The issue of the limitation period for assessment was left open for further examination by the authorities.