2020 (5) TMI 471 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - Validity of assessment order - main grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that before passing the orders of assessment, the petitioner was not served with any notice of proposal - HELD THAT - Going by the facts and circumstances and considering that one of the issues before the Assessing Officer is mismatch issue and that the same has to be dealt with in accordance with the guidelines/directions issued in JKM Graphics 2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , further considering the fact that the petitioner was not heard before passing the orders of assessment and that the orders of assessment themselves were served on the petitioner only recently, this Court is of the view that interest of both parties will be protected if the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment afresh on all issues by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment on all issues after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitione - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging assessment orders for the assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, lack of notice of proposal before assessment, delay in serving assessment orders, mismatch issue in assessment proceedings, directions and guidelines from previous cases, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard two writ petitions challenging assessment orders for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, highlighting the absence of a notice of proposal before assessment and the delayed service of assessment orders to the petitioner. The main contention was that the petitioner was not served with any notice of proposal before the assessment orders were passed, and even though the orders were dated 30.08.2017, they were served on the petitioner only recently after a request for communication. The learned Government Advocate acknowledged the delay in serving the assessment orders. One significant issue in the assessment proceedings was the mismatch issue, which had been previously addressed by the Court in a batch of cases, providing directions and guidelines to the Assessing Officer on how to handle such issues before passing assessment orders. A circular was also issued by the Revenue to keep the mismatch issue in abeyance following the Court's order.

The Court, considering the circumstances, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. It was noted that the petitioner was not heard before the assessment orders were passed, and the orders were served late. The Court emphasized the importance of giving the petitioner a fair hearing and protecting the interests of both parties. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment orders and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment on all issues after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner was instructed to treat the impugned orders as a notice of proposal and respond within two weeks. The Assessing Officer was specifically directed to handle the mismatch issue in line with the guidelines from previous cases and pass assessment orders on that issue based on merits and the law. Other issues were to be reconsidered afresh, taking into account the petitioner's objections and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court stressed the need for expeditious action by the Assessing Officer and concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petitions without any costs.