2020 (12) TMI 1009 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - Revision of assessment - revision on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished the certificates in the specified form with regard to the sales effected by them to Government Departments - further contention of the petitioner is that no sufficient opportunity was granted to them by the fourth respondent for production of the required certificates with regard to the sales effected by them to the Government Departments - change of opinion - HELD THAT - This Court, after giving due consideration to the revision notice dated 31.12.2019 issued by the fourth respondent and the impugned assessment orders dated 28.08.2020 passed by the same fourth respondent, is of the considered view that, no sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to produce the required certificates, with regard to the sales effected by them to the Government Departments. If the same was intimated to the petitioner in the revision notice dated 31.12.2019 itself, the petitioner might have placed the required certificates before the fourth respondent during the assessment proceedings. However, without any request being made to the petitioner, arbitrarily, the fourth respondent has passed the impugned assessment orders, dated 28.08.2020 revising the assessment on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the required certificates for the sales effected to Government Departments, to enable them to avail concessional rate of tax. The learned counsel before this Court on instructions has also submitted that the petitioner is willing to produce all the necessary certificates before the fourth respondent, if the matter is remanded back to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned assessment orders dated 28.08.2020 passed by the fourth respondent are arbitrary and the principles of natural justice has been violated by the fourth respondent while passing the impugned assessment orders - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Revision of assessment notice based on sales to local bodies instead of Government Departments, non-furnishing of required certificates, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the revision of assessment notice issued by the fourth respondent, proposing to revise the earlier assessment due to sales to local bodies instead of Government Departments, affecting the tax concession eligibility. The petitioner contended that the impugned assessment orders were revised without proper consideration and non-application of mind by the fourth respondent. The petitioner argued that they were not given sufficient opportunity to produce the necessary certificates for sales to Government Departments, as required by law.

The petitioner highlighted discrepancies between the revision notice and the impugned assessment orders, indicating a lack of clarity and consistency in the grounds for revision provided by the fourth respondent. The petitioner expressed readiness to submit all required certificates if granted the opportunity. The court noted the absence of a valid reason for the change in opinion by the fourth respondent and emphasized the lack of opportunity granted to the petitioner to present the necessary documents during the assessment proceedings.

After thorough consideration, the court concluded that the impugned assessment orders were arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner sufficient opportunity to comply with the certificate requirements. As a result, the court quashed the assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration. The court directed the fourth respondent to provide the petitioner with ample opportunity, including a personal hearing, to produce all the necessary certificates within a specified timeframe.

In the final disposition, the court ordered the writ petitions to be closed without costs, following the remand of the matter to the fourth respondent for reevaluation. The judgment aimed to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in the assessment process, emphasizing the importance of providing adequate opportunities for compliance and representation to the concerned party.