2019 (5) TMI 801 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - Validity of assessment order - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - contention is that the order of assessment was served at the new address and that this clearly demonstrates denial of fair opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT - It appears that the change of the office premises of the petitioner allegedly happened in the year 2009, but the e-filing was introduced in 2011. Though the petitioner has produced a copy of Form - 112 allegedly filed by them and the same also carries the rubber stamp of the Department, the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Department states that the same is not available in the files - there is no point in trying to find out who was at fault. The same would require a litter more effort on our part, in summoning all the documents and scrutinizing the files. All that the petitioner wants is one more opportunity. Therefore, even if we do not find the respondents at fault, we can always give one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, since they obviously did not have the opportunity of objecting to the show-cause notice. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, 1956 due to lack of proper service of show-cause notices and other notices.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order for the period 2013-14 under the CST Act, 1956, citing lack of proper service of show-cause notices and other notices. The contention was that despite filing Form - 112 for a change of address, notices were sent to the old address, leading to a denial of fair opportunity of hearing. The Department argued that Form - 112 was not available in the files and that all returns reflected the old address, justifying the notices sent to the old address.

The petitioner claimed to have changed office premises in 2009, but e-filing began in 2011. Although the petitioner produced a copy of Form - 112 with the Department's rubber stamp, the Department stated it was not available in the files. The court acknowledged the difficulty in determining fault and opted to grant the petitioner another opportunity for a fair hearing, even if fault was not found on the Department's part.

Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, the assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority. The petitioner was directed to file objections by a specified date, treating the impugned order as a show-cause notice. The Assessing Officer was instructed to schedule a personal hearing and issue fresh orders in compliance with the law. The Department was also directed to update the petitioner's address as per Form VAT - 112. No costs were awarded in this case, and any pending Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.