Assessment orders for 1999-2001 set aside for fair review, emphasizing due process and right to challenge evidence.

The court set aside the assessment orders for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, directing the respondent to provide the petitioner with copies of relevant documents for review. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to challenge the documents before fresh assessment orders were passed, ensuring a fair process. The court emphasized the importance of due process and the right to challenge evidence, ultimately disposing of the writ petitions without costs and closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment orders issued by the respondent for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
2. Imposition of a penalty of 150 per cent of the tax demanded.
3. Dispute regarding the cancellation of the certificate of registration and surrender of unused "C" forms.
4. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enquiry against certain dealers.
5. Lack of opportunity for the petitioner to challenge documents relied upon by the respondent.
6. Denial of inter-State purchases by the petitioner.
7. Comparison with a similar case involving M/s. G.K. Chemicals.

Analysis:
1. The respondent issued assessment orders for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, proposing tax assessment based on the best judgment after receiving a report from enforcement officers. The petitioner challenged these orders through writ petitions, contesting the tax demands and the penalty of 150 per cent imposed.

2. The cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of registration from April 1, 1994, and the surrender of unused "C" forms in February 1999 were undisputed facts in the case, forming the basis of the respondent's assessment decisions.

3. A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enquiry into fraudulent transactions involving certain dealers led to enforcement actions against the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's claim of business closure in 1990 and certificate cancellation in 1994, the respondent's conclusion on inter-State purchases was disputed.

4. In a related case involving M/s. G.K. Chemicals, the court had directed the respondent to provide copies of relevant documents to the petitioner for a fair assessment process. The lack of such an opportunity for the petitioner in the present case raised concerns about due process and the right to challenge evidence.

5. The court emphasized that a person denying all transactions should be considered as denying inter-State purchases as well. The petitioner's assertion of business closure and certificate cancellation should have been taken into account by the respondent in assessing the tax liability.

6. Following the precedent set in the G.K. Chemicals case, the court set aside the impugned assessment orders in the present case and directed the respondent to provide the petitioner with copies of all relevant documents for review. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to challenge the documents before fresh assessment orders were passed, ensuring a fair and transparent process.

7. Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petitions, ordering the respondent to comply with the directives regarding document disclosure and assessment review. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, bringing the legal proceedings to a conclusion.

---