2024 (7) TMI 461 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Challenge to assessment order - non-furnishing of documents - HELD THAT - It is noticed that the demand that was earlier confirmed has been now confirmed vide impugned order pursuant to the remand order dated 16.02.2023 pursuant to the alleged information gathered by the respondent from the common portal. Unless the information is furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a liability. The respondent is directed to furnish the necessary information to the petitioner as was ordered by the Deputy Appellate Commissioner vide order dated 16.02.2023 and thereafter proceed with the assessment - the impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugned assessment orders for respective assessment years
2. Appeal against assessment orders before Appellate Deputy Commissioner
3. Failure to furnish documents as ordered by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner
4. Respondent's contention of non-furnishing of documents by the petitioner
5. Confirmation of demand based on information from common portal without furnishing information to petitioner
6. Direction to respondent to furnish necessary information and proceed with assessment
7. Quashing of impugned orders and remitting the case back for fresh assessment

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras addresses multiple issues arising from writ petitions filed by the petitioner against impugned assessment orders for various assessment years. The petitioner had earlier faced assessment orders, which were set aside by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner directing the assessing officer to provide specific documents and follow a particular court judgment. However, the respondent proceeded to pass new orders without furnishing the required documents to the petitioner, leading to a challenge in the court.

The respondent contended that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence as required, but the court observed that the demand confirmed in the impugned orders was based on information gathered from a common portal without providing the necessary details to the petitioner. The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot be held liable without being furnished with the relevant information as directed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

As a result, the court directed the respondent to provide the essential information to the petitioner as ordered by the Deputy Appellate Commissioner and proceed with the assessment accordingly. The impugned orders were quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh assessment to be conducted promptly and in compliance with the law. The court also set timelines for the furnishing of information to the petitioner, ensuring a fair and transparent assessment process.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed. The judgment highlights the importance of due process and the necessity for providing relevant information to the concerned parties during assessment procedures to ensure a fair and just outcome.