2021 (6) TMI 1005 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - Revision of assessment - opportunity as contemplated under the provisions of the Act is not provided before passing the final orders of revision of assessment - HELD THAT - Petitioner's request to grant two months time to file certificate of payment in letter dated 17.09.2013 was not disposed of. In other words, no order of rejection or acceptance was passed. Thus, the petitioner was deprived of his opportunity to file the documents. This Court is of the considered opinion that the assessees may work out their remedy in a calculated manner, some times to prolong and protract the issues. However, the authorities competent are expected to be cautious in the matter of following of the procedures contemplated. Evasion of Tax is a common phenomenon in our nation. Thus, the competent authorities while dealing with any issues are bound to be careful, more specifically in the matter of following the procedures as contemplated in the statute and the rules - The officials competent are expected to follow the procedures contemplated under the statute and rules scrupulously. The procedural violations, if any, committed would cause unnecessary delay and further, provide cause for further disputes on such technical grounds. In the present case, undoubtedly, the assessees are adopting the delay tactics. Unfortunately, the system also supports such litigants in disposal of the matters as such matters are kept pending for years together. Ultimately, such delay causes injury to the revenue for the State and sufferers would be the public at large in the society. Thus, the authorities are bound to be careful while dealing with such matters. The respondent is also expected to pursue the matters before the Courts vigilantly so as to get disposal as early as possible in such matters where fresh considerations are required on account of certain technical and procedural irregularities. In view of the fact that the respondent has not disposed of the request made by the petitioner to grant two months time to file certificate of payment, the matter is to be remanded back for fresh adjudication by following the procedures - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revision of assessment orders based on lack of opportunity as per the Act's provisions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged revision of assessment orders due to lack of opportunity as per the Act's provisions, alleging violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner argued that the respondent passed orders unilaterally without allowing submission of documents and defense statements.

2. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that despite requesting two months to file a payment certificate, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders without accepting or rejecting the request. Citing a previous judgment, the counsel emphasized the importance of granting or rejecting extension requests immediately to ensure procedural fairness.

3. The Government Advocate for the respondent contended that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity provided, shifting blame to the petitioner for not taking necessary actions. The respondent's counter affidavit revealed exhaustive verification of records, lapses identified, and due process followed before passing orders.

4. The respondent argued that the petitioner, despite receiving notice and admitting its receipt, failed to file objections or seek records for perusal during a two-year period. The respondent maintained that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity provided, leading to the filing of Writ Petitions without utilizing available avenues.

5. The Court emphasized the importance of following procedures meticulously to avoid unnecessary delays and disputes. Highlighting the need for authorities to be cautious in tax matters, the Court noted the procedural violations in the case and stressed the significance of upholding natural justice principles.

6. Considering the delayed filing of Writ Petitions after the impugned orders, the Court underscored the necessity for authorities to strictly adhere to statutory procedures to prevent procedural lapses. The Court reiterated the importance of exhausting appellate remedies before resorting to Writ Petitions, except in cases of urgency or irreparable harm.

7. Due to the respondent's failure to dispose of the petitioner's request for additional time to file documents, the Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, quashing the impugned orders. The Court directed the respondent to reevaluate the case, afford the petitioner an opportunity to submit necessary documents, and pass final orders within a specified timeframe.

8. The Court allowed the Writ Petitions, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, concluding the judgment.