2020 (4) TMI 468 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of mistake - mistake apparent on the face of record - Principles of natural justice - the petitioner is not been afforded any reasonable opportunity of being heard by the 1st respondent even prior to the present stage of the decision said to have been taken - HELD THAT - The Secretary to the office of the Advocate General will immediately forward a copy of this judgment to the 1st respondent, for necessary information and immediate compliance. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with appellate orders and natural justice in assessment proceedings for the year 2015-16.
2. Validity of the modified assessment order for 2015-16.
3. Rectification of mistake under the KVAT Act.
4. Suspension of proceedings pending rectification application.
5. Fresh assessment orders for the year 2015-16.
6. Granting of any other justified orders.
7. Award of costs to the petitioner.

Compliance with Appellate Orders and Natural Justice:
The petitioner sought directions for the 1st respondent to explain the reasons for non-compliance with appellate orders and violating natural justice in passing the modified assessment order for 2015-16. The petitioner alleged denial of the opportunity to be heard. The court directed the 1st respondent to communicate the orders on the rectification application promptly to the petitioner and the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue legal remedies if aggrieved by the orders passed by the 1st respondent. The court instructed the 1st respondent to provide factual instructions regarding the opportunity of being heard granted to the petitioner before passing the assessment order and the subsequent order related to the rectification application.

Validity of Modified Assessment Order:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash the modified assessment order for 2015-16, alleging arbitrary refusal to follow prescribed procedures. The court noted that the main prayer had become practically infructuous as the 1st respondent had already passed orders on the rectification application. The court directed the 1st respondent to forward a copy of the orders to the petitioner and the petitioner's counsel promptly. The petitioner was given the liberty to pursue legal remedies if dissatisfied with the orders passed by the 1st respondent.

Rectification of Mistake under the KVAT Act:
The petitioner requested a writ directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the rectification application expeditiously. The court directed the 1st respondent to communicate the orders on the rectification application promptly to the petitioner and the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner was granted liberty to seek legal remedies if dissatisfied with the orders passed by the 1st respondent.

Suspension of Proceedings Pending Rectification Application:
The petitioner sought a writ directing the 3rd respondent to suspend further proceedings pending the rectification application. The court did not explicitly address this issue in the judgment, focusing instead on the communication of orders on the rectification application and the petitioner's liberty to pursue legal remedies.

Fresh Assessment Orders for 2015-16:
The petitioner requested a writ directing the 1st respondent to pass fresh assessment orders for 2015-16 in accordance with the law expeditiously. The court did not address this request explicitly in the judgment, as the main prayer regarding the assessment order had become practically infructuous due to the 1st respondent's actions on the rectification application.

Granting of Other Justified Orders:
The petitioner sought other orders deemed justified by the court. The judgment did not specify any additional orders beyond those related to the communication of orders on the rectification application and the petitioner's liberty to pursue legal remedies.

Award of Costs:
The petitioner requested an award of costs for the proceedings. The judgment did not explicitly mention the award of costs, focusing instead on the directions related to the communication of orders and the petitioner's liberty to pursue legal remedies.

← Previous Next →