2019 (4) TMI 1549 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of request for rectification of re-assessment orders - it was alleged that the prescribed Authority has concluded the assessment without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner - HELD THAT - There is no embargo for the Assessing Authority to amend the order under sub-section(3) of Section 69 of the Act in relation to any matter other than which has been so considered and decided in proceedings by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Act. Though the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, no matter has been considered and decided on merits. That being the position, the prescribed Authority rejecting the rectification applications on the ground of dismissal of the appeals cannot be sustained. The books of accounts not being produced by the petitioner allegedly for non service of notices, would have a direct bearing in determining the tax liability. The prescribed Authority ought to have examined whether the request made by the petitioner would be amenable to rectification under Section 69 of the Act. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served in setting aside the endorsements Annexures M, N and P to the writ petitions and restoring the proceedings to the file of the respondent No.1 to reconsider the same in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to re-assessment orders and endorsements seeking direction for de novo re-assessment based on rectification applications.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the re-assessment order and endorsements seeking de novo re-assessment for tax periods 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009. The respondent concluded re-assessment without serving proposition notices, leading to arbitrary determination of tax, interest, and penalty. Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, followed by rejected rectification applications (Annexures M, N, P). The petitioner argued that the rejection reasons were untenable under Section 69(3) of the Act, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of books of accounts.

The primary contention revolved around the rejection of rectification requests by the prescribed Authority. Section 69 of the Act allows rectification for apparent mistakes. The petitioner stressed that the books of accounts were crucial for accurate tax liability determination, contrary to the Authority's reasoning based on dismissed appeals. The court noted that no merits were considered in the appeal dismissal, allowing the Authority to rectify under Section 69(3). The failure to produce accounts due to alleged notice non-service directly impacted tax liability assessment.

The court emphasized the need for the Authority to assess the rectification requests under Section 69, setting aside the rejection endorsements (Annexures M, N, P). It directed the proceedings back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration, requiring a 30% deposit of the total demand within three weeks. Non-compliance would revive the demand orders. The judgment aimed at ensuring justice by allowing a fair opportunity for the petitioner in the re-assessment process, highlighting the importance of due process and proper consideration of evidence.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions with detailed observations and directions, emphasizing compliance with the set conditions for further proceedings. The judgment focused on upholding legal principles, rectifying procedural errors, and ensuring a fair assessment process for the petitioner.