2019 (12) TMI 6 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - service of order - principles of natural justice - main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not issued with any notice at any point of time before passing the impugned order - HELD THAT - When the petitioner has specifically raised the ground that no notice was served on them at any point of time, then it is the bounden duty of the Assessing Officer to prove before this Court about service of such notice - In this case, the Assessing Officer failed to prove the service of notice. Therefore, this Court has to reasonably conclude that no notice was served on the petitioner before passing the impugned order - Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for redoing the assessment, after gettiing a reply from the petitioner. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for redoing the assessment - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order for assessment year 2016-2017 based on violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order for the relevant assessment year, alleging a violation of natural justice principles due to the absence of any prior notice. The petitioner contended that no notice was issued before the impugned order was passed. The court directed the Government Pleader to verify this claim. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged the issuance of a proposal notice and a personal hearing notice, but admitted the lack of proof of service of these notices. Consequently, the court considered the absence of proof of notice service and concluded that no notice was indeed served on the petitioner before the assessment order was passed.

The court emphasized the Assessing Officer's duty to prove the service of notices when challenged by the petitioner. Since the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence of notice service, the court decided to set aside the assessment order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the case's merits, leaving it to the Assessing Officer to reconsider and issue a fresh assessment order based on the petitioner's response to the notice of proposal.

In allowing the writ petition, the court outlined specific terms and conditions for the reassessment process. These included treating the impugned order as the notice of proposal, the petitioner's obligation to respond within two weeks with necessary documents, scheduling a personal hearing by the Assessing Officer, and issuing a fresh assessment order within six weeks after the hearing. The court made it clear that the reassessment should be conducted in accordance with the law, without indicating any bias towards either party. No costs were awarded, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.