2024 (7) TMI 1348 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - same Officer has assumed dual role both as the Commercial Tax Officer and the State Tax Officer (Data Analytics) (Intelligence Wing), Virudhunagar - respondents is unable to explain as to why the same officer has signed in two different capacity, one as the Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli and another as the State Tax Officer, (Data Analytics) (Intelligence Wing), Virudhunagar - HELD THAT - Since there is no proper explanation, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases back to the second respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period two months. Needless to state, the petitioner shall be heard, before passing the orders. The petitioner shall co-operate with the second respondent. In case, the petitioner fails to co-operate with the second respondent, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner based on the available materials on record. The petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment orders based on alleged bias and dual role of the assessing officer.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment orders for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22, contending that the same individual, L.Kumaresan, acted as both the Commercial Tax Officer and the State Tax Officer (Data Analytics) (Intelligence Wing), Virudhunagar, which led to a biased decision-making process. The petitioner argued that this dual role created a situation of patent bias, further exacerbated by the fact that the officer had already been transferred but still issued the impugned orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized the discrepancy of the same officer signing in two different capacities, raising concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the assessment process.

The Court noted the inability of the learned Government Advocate to provide a satisfactory explanation for the officer's dual roles and the lack of clarity regarding why the same officer operated in multiple capacities. Recognizing the apparent discrepancy and the risk of bias, the Court decided to set aside the impugned orders and instructed the cases to be remitted back to the second respondent for fresh assessment. The Court directed the second respondent to conduct a new assessment promptly, preferably within two months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard during the process. However, the Court also warned that failure to cooperate could lead to actions against the petitioner based on available evidence. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with the outlined directions, emphasizing the need for a fair and unbiased assessment process while closing the related miscellaneous petitions without costs.