2021 (4) TMI 411 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - Assessing Officer did not look into the accounts, which were produced by the appellant - HELD THAT - The refusal to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a statutory alternate remedy is available under the Act is a selfimposed restriction and there are exceptions carved out from this selfimposed rule. One such exception, which has been held by the Court to be a justifiable reason to exercise writ jurisdiction, is when the writ petition is pending for a considerable length of time before a Court and it would be too harsh on the party to be driven to avail the alternate remedy after few years. The Assessing Officer cannot state that he need not call for other bills and even it is called for, except for the 7 bills, which were purchased by the appellant, all other bills will reflect lower sale price than the purchase price. This may not be a right approach while completing the assessment for the purpose of levying tax. The Assessing Officer has to come to a definite conclusion, especially, when it is a scrutiny assessment and the dealer has cooperated in the scrutiny by filing their reply and submitting the documents available with them. Had it be a case of best judgment assessment, the situation would have been different, which is not so in the case on hand. The matter has to be sent back to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after affording an opportunity to the appellant/dealer - the matter is remanded to the respondent-Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order based on violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The writ appeal challenged an order made in response to a writ petition regarding an assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The appellant contended that the assessment was unfair as the Assessing Officer did not consider the accounts provided. The appellant, a registered dealer, faced scrutiny for the year 2011-12, with a show cause notice alleging the sale of cement bags below purchase price to inflate profits. In response, the appellant submitted transactions demonstrating higher sale prices and requested the Assessing Officer to drop the proposed tax assessment on a specific amount received as discount. Despite providing accounts, purchase bills, and sale bills, the Assessing Officer did not offer a personal hearing, leading to a rejection of the appellant's reply. The Officer claimed all goods were sold without stock, resulting in a gross loss, and presumed most sale prices were lower than purchase prices without thorough examination.

The Court considered whether the Assessing Officer's presumption was justified and found it lacking. The Court highlighted the importance of a proper assessment process, especially in scrutiny cases where the dealer cooperates by submitting relevant documents. The Judges emphasized that in this scenario, where it was not a best judgment assessment, the Officer needed to reach a definite conclusion after considering all evidence provided by the appellant. The Court concluded that the matter should be sent back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the appellant to treat the previous assessment order as a show cause notice, submit objections and records within two weeks, and the Officer to conduct a fair assessment with a personal hearing and issue a new order promptly.

In summary, the Court allowed the writ appeal, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for a reevaluation. The appellant was instructed to present objections and records promptly, and the Officer was directed to conduct a fair assessment within 60 days of the personal hearing, refraining from coercive actions during this period. The judgment aimed to ensure a just and thorough assessment process, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence and providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.