2020 (8) TMI 161 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - violation was sought to be corrected by permitting the petitioner to approach the Assessing Officer within one week from date of receipt of a copy of that order - copy application made after a period of six months from the date passing of the order - mismatch between the turnover disclosed in the returns filed by the petitioner and those in the annexures of the selling/purchasing dealers - benefit of Circular No.3 of 2019 rejected - HELD THAT - The learned Single Judge has opined that no opportunity was extended to the petitioner to substantiate the turnover reported by him in the revised returns to correct which, an opportunity was directed to be extended to the petitioner. Neither the petitioner nor the Department has availed of this opportunity as extended by the court, and there has been considerable delay on the part of both the parties - the impugned orders is set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessments de novo and in accordance with law taking note of the revised returns filed by the petitioner under cover of letter dated 26.03.2015 and bearing in mind the directions of the Commissioner in Circular No.3 of 2019. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Violation of timeframes set by the Court, rejection of Circular No.3 of 2019, mismatch in turnover disclosed in returns

In this case, the petitioner had challenged three assessment orders for the periods 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 in a writ petition, citing violations of natural justice. The Court, in its order dated 19.09.2016, did not set aside the orders but directed the petitioner to approach the Assessing Officer for corrections within a week. However, the petitioner appeared before the Officer only on 09.03.2017, which was beyond the stipulated time frame due to delays in receiving the order copy. Subsequently, the Officer issued a notice on 27.05.2019, two years after receiving the petitioner's letter, leading to the passing of impugned orders after objections were raised on 10.06.2019.

On the issue of mismatch in turnover disclosed, the petitioner initially filed 'nil' returns but later submitted revised returns beyond the stipulated time under the VAT Rules. The Assessing Officer rejected the benefit of Circular No.3 of 2019, arguing that the petitioner's returns did not disclose any turnover. However, the petitioner had filed revised returns earlier, requesting consideration due to health reasons. The Court noted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to substantiate the turnover reported in the revised returns, leading to delays from both parties.

Considering the circumstances, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessments afresh, taking into account the revised returns filed by the petitioner and following the directions of Circular No.3 of 2019. The writ petitions were disposed accordingly, with connected miscellaneous petitions closed and no costs imposed.