2025 (3) TMI 424 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Validity/correctness of order granting permission/sanction for re-assessment - Commissioner is entitled to grant such permission for reassessment without affording opportunity of hearing to the Assessee or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is to be noted that vide order dated 08.07.2014 in CWP-12839- 2014 2015 (3) TMI 479 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT and other connected writ petitions vires of Section 29 (7) of PV Act were upheld approval given by Commissioner and notices issued by concerned authority for amending assessment order were held to be in order and without any fault. Reference was thereafter made to Rule 49 of Punjab VAT Rules in regard to amendment of assessment and procedure to be followed therein. In respect to question of grant of opportunity of hearing at the stage of grant of approval while referring to judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner Assessment-II Bangalore and others versus Velliappa Textiles Limited and another 2003 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT it was held that grant of sanction is a purely administrative act with no opportunity of hearing required to be provided to the affected person before it. The learned Tribunal has correctly proceeded to dismiss the appeals filed by present appellant - appeal dismissed.

Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered two appeals, VATAP Nos. 89 and 97 of 2016, which arose from a common order issued by the Value Added Tax Tribunal. The main issue for consideration was whether the order granting permission for re-assessment under Section 27 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee, was correctly passed. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner was entitled to grant such permission based on the grounds detailed in the request for amendment, without the requirement of providing a hearing to the Assessee at that stage. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and upheld the validity of the order granting permission for re-assessment.The Court noted that the issue raised in the appeals was previously addressed in a decision dated 08.07.2015 in another case filed by the same appellant, where the prayer was to set aside Section 29 (7) of the PV Act, 2005, as unconstitutional and violative of natural justice. The Court highlighted that similar arguments were raised in the present appeals, which were already dismissed by a Division Bench of the Court in a previous case. The Court emphasized that the grant of permission for re-assessment without a hearing to the Assessee was in line with the provisions of the PV Act, 2005.The Court referred to the provisions of Section 29 (7) of the PV Act, which authorize the designated officer to amend assessment orders under certain circumstances, subject to seeking prior permission from the Commissioner. The Court cited relevant legal precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court, to support the administrative nature of granting permission for re-assessment without the requirement of a hearing at that stage. The Court held that the provision in question was not unreasonable, unconstitutional, or ultra vires.Based on the factual matrix and legal analysis, the Court concluded that no question of law was involved in the appeals. The Court found no grounds for interference in the appeals and dismissed them as devoid of merit.