1992 (7) TMI 300 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules in favor of dealer, stresses reasons for reopening assessments & bars revisiting merged orders. Judges answer reference.

The Court ruled in favor of the dealer on both issues, emphasizing the necessity for reasons in reopening assessments and the prohibition on revisiting ... - Issues Involved: The issues involved in this case are: 1. Whether reasons are required to be indicated by the Sales Tax Officer when directing reopening of assessment for escapement or under-assessmentRs. 2. Whether an assessment that has merged with the appellate order can be reopened under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947Rs.Relevant Details: Issue 1: The Court rephrased the questions to focus on whether the Sales Tax Officer must provide reasons for reopening assessments. The case background involved an assessment for the year 1976-77, which was initially nullified in appeal but later reopened under section 12(8) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the Sales Tax Officer must indicate the basis for suspecting escapement or under-assessment, as the provision does not allow for arbitrary actions without reason.Issue 2: Regarding the second question, the Court clarified that once an assessment order merges with the appellate order, it cannot be reopened under section 12(8) of the Act. The doctrine of merger dictates that only one operative order can govern a subject matter at a time. Therefore, attempting to reopen an assessment that has already been concluded by an appellate authority is beyond the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. The Court held that allowing such actions would grant excessive power to review final decisions, undermining the hierarchy of appellate forums.In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the dealer on both issues, emphasizing the necessity for reasons in reopening assessments and the prohibition on revisiting assessments merged with appellate orders. The reference was answered accordingly by the Judges.