2023 (12) TMI 598 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Default assessments - recovery of demand was stayed upon the payment - HELD THAT - Considering the time gap between the hearing of the petitioner and the passing of the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside. It is also liable to be set aside on the ground that the concerned officer, who had passed the impugned order, had not heard the petitioner. The present petition has been pending as the petitioner also seeks to resist an order remanding the matter to the concerned authority for considering it afresh. It is the petitioner s contention that the impugned order was void and, therefore, now the option of the Department to proceed against the petitioner stands foreclosed by lapse of time. However, the learned counsel does not press this issue. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the OHA to decide afresh. The concerned OHA shall pass a speaking order uninfluenced by the impugned order, after affording the petitioner, sufficient opportunity to be heard - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petition impugned an order issued by the respondents under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The main issues were the delay in passing orders, change in the officer passing the impugned order, and the petitioner's contention regarding the validity of the order.

Delay in Passing Orders:
The petitioner objected to default assessments in 2014, and the recovery of demand was stayed in 2015. Despite hearings in 2015, no orders were passed for almost four years. A notice was issued in 2019, leading to the impugned order in the same year. The court found the delay significant and set aside the order due to the time gap between the hearing and the order.

Change in Officer Passing the Order:
Although the petitioner was heard by one officer, the impugned order was passed by a different officer. Ms. Shilpa Shinde, who passed the order, had not heard the petitioner. The court held that the order was liable to be set aside because the officer who passed it had not heard the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of the officer's involvement in the decision-making process.

Validity of the Order:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order was void, foreclosing the Department's option to proceed against them due to the lapse of time. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the order, and remanding the matter to the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) for a fresh decision. The OHA was directed to pass a speaking order, ensuring the petitioner is given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The court also instructed the OHA to conclude the proceedings expeditiously within four months while reserving all rights and contentions on the merits of the matter.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision. The OHA was directed to pass a speaking order, afford the petitioner adequate opportunity to be heard, and conclude the proceedings within four months. All pending applications were also disposed of in the same terms.