2018 (3) TMI 1 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - petitioner submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions is mismatch and such issue is already covered by the decision of this Court in M/s. JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Held that - considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has to re-do the assessment, in view of the above said decision of this Court, this writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set side. Consequently, the matters are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment commencing from the stage of issuing notice of proposal, after following guidelines/procedures issued by this Court in the above referred order - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks Writs of Certiorari to quash records on file of respondent dated 13.03.2017 for being without jurisdiction and authority of law.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking to quash records on the file of the respondent dated 13.03.2017. The issue at hand was regarding mismatch, which was already addressed in a previous decision by the court. The court had directed the Assessing Officer to establish a centralised mechanism to handle cases of mismatch before issuing notices. It was emphasized that a centralised mechanism would prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and pending cases before courts, safeguarding the revenue's interest. The court highlighted the need for a detailed procedure to address discrepancies, involving consultation with other officers and evolving a fair mechanism for dealers to explain their position. The court allowed all writ petitions, setting aside notices/orders and remanding the matters to the respective Assessing Officers for a fresh evaluation. The petitioners were directed not to raise the plea of limitation when fresh show cause notices were issued.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader (Tax), acknowledged the court's previous order necessitating the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment following the guidelines set in the earlier decision. Considering this, the court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matters back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. The Assessing Officer was instructed to follow the court's guidelines and provide a personal hearing to the petitioner before finalizing the assessment order. The entire reassessment process was mandated to be completed within eight weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the court's order. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.