2021 (1) TMI 20 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - ex parte order - no notice of the assessments was served - HELD THAT - The petitioner has not filed a rejoinder disputing the averments made in the reply. In absence of any denial to the assertions of the respondents about service of the notice and participation of the petitioner during assessment proceedings, the petitioner s ground of lack of service of notice must be turned down. All other grounds, need to be examined in an Appeal if, the petitioner so chooses to file. We have noticed that the assessing officer has raised tax demand only for the period of A/Y2000-01 by passing the impugned order in the year 2007. There is no document showing that the order of assessment was duly served on the petitioner. Even the order of assessment records that upon inquiry it was found that the establishment of the petitioner is closed and no business was being transacted at that time. The petitioner s challenge to the impugned order on the ground of no hearing or non-service of notice before passing the order of assessment is turned down - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of unpaid sales tax demand, Lack of service of notice, Participation in assessment proceedings, Reprieve from period of limitation, Protection against coercive recovery.

Unpaid Sales Tax Demand:
The Writ Petition challenges an order raising a demand of unpaid sales tax of &8377; 1,00,674.97 for the assessment year 2000-01. The petitioner, a registered dealer, claims to have stopped business and not received any notice of assessments. The order of assessment was passed ex parte, and the petitioner only became aware of the proceedings when coercive measures were initiated for tax recovery.

Service of Notice and Participation:
The respondents assert that all notices for assessments were duly served on the petitioner, who, along with representatives, appeared before the assessing officer multiple times and requested time. The order of assessment was passed after hearing the petitioner, contradicting the petitioner's claim of lack of service of notice.

Reprieve and Protection:
The Court notes the absence of clarity regarding the service of the order of assessment on the aged petitioner and the fact that the establishment was found closed during the relevant period. Considering the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file an Appeal within four weeks, with assurance of no coercive recovery of tax dues until the appeal is disposed of.

Judgment:
The Court dismisses the challenge to the order based on lack of hearing or non-service of notice. It allows the petitioner to raise any other grounds in the Appeal without delay. The Court provides protection against coercive recovery until the appeal is resolved. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with pending applications also being disposed of.