2017 (3) TMI 278 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Natural justice - none of the documents filed by the petitioner have been taken into account - while the demand notice dated 14.11.2016, bears the signature of the respondent, the Assessment Order has not been signed by the said Officer - Held that - It appears that the respondent/Assessing Officer has passed the impugned Assessment Order dated 14.11.2016, in haste, and consequently, not even appended his signature on the Order - The respondent/Assessing Officer, after affording an opportunity to the authorised representative of the petitioner, will pass a fresh order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Failure to file a counter affidavit by the respondent.
2. Discrepancy in acknowledgment of replies filed by the petitioner.
3. Allegation of non-consideration of documents filed by the petitioner.
4. Lack of signature on the impugned Assessment Order.
5. Request for an opportunity to furnish C Form declarations by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The judgment highlights that no counter affidavit was filed by the respondent despite seeking accommodation, leading to the court granting an interim direction against precipitative action.
2. The discrepancy in acknowledgment of replies filed by the petitioner raised concerns, especially regarding the second reply dated 10.11.2016, which was allegedly not considered in the impugned order dated 14.11.2016. The court emphasized the importance of establishing if the second reply was served on the respondent.
3. The petitioner alleged that none of the documents filed were taken into account during the assessment process. The court noted the submission and emphasized the significance of considering all relevant documents in such proceedings.
4. The absence of a signature on the impugned Assessment Order dated 14.11.2016 was acknowledged by both parties, with the respondent's counsel admitting that this made the order susceptible to court interference.
5. Considering the petitioner's claim of having C Form declarations, the court agreed that an opportunity should be granted to furnish the same. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer with all original declarations and documents for a fresh assessment order to be passed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Madras High Court underscores the procedural and substantive issues involved in the case, emphasizing the importance of due process and consideration of all relevant documents in assessment proceedings.