2019 (3) TMI 770 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - case of petitioner is that no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner prior to the framing of the impugned assessments - Held that - An order of assessment has to be a speaking one, containing reasons for the adjustments and additions effected revealing application of mind to the objections raised by the assessee and for rejection thereof, if the officer is not inclined to accept the same. The orders impugned do not satisfy the requirements and are non-speaking and bereft of reasons. The assessments are set aside - The Assessing Authority is directed to redo the same after affording an opportunity to the assessee who shall appear before him at the first instance on 25.02.2019 at 10.30 a.m - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17 based on lack of opportunity for the petitioner before framing assessments.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, for the mentioned Assessment Years, alleging that no opportunity was provided before the assessments were framed. The main contention raised was the lack of pre-assessment opportunity for the petitioner as required by law.

Upon reviewing the impugned orders, it was noted that the assessments were conducted after an inspection by enforcement officials, who identified certain discrepancies in stock. Subsequently, the assessment authority issued notices proposing to reject the filed returns as incorrect and incomplete, based on the inspection report. While it was acknowledged that notices were sent to the dealers and objections were submitted by the petitioners, the order failed to specify the objections raised, the Assessing Officer's consideration of those objections, and the reasons for rejecting them. The court observed that the order lacked clarity and failed to provide an effective opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

The court emphasized that an assessment order must be detailed, providing reasons for adjustments and additions made, demonstrating a thoughtful consideration of objections raised by the assessee. In this case, the orders were deemed non-speaking and devoid of reasons, thus not meeting the necessary requirements.

Consequently, the court set aside the assessments and directed the Assessing Authority to redo the assessments after granting a proper opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the authority on a specified date for a personal hearing, with assessments to be completed within two months from the conclusion of the hearing. The Writ Petitions were allowed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.