Court sets aside assessment orders for 2007-08, 2008-09

The court set aside the assessment orders for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 due to the respondent's failure to verify the submission of "C" declaration forms and disallowance of exemption for export sales. The petitioner was directed to submit the necessary documents promptly for fresh consideration by the respondent. The court emphasized expeditious resolution and closed the case without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, failure to produce "C" declaration forms, disallowance of exemption for export sales, request for fresh assessment orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions to challenge the assessment orders for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, seeking to quash the proceedings and obtain fresh assessment orders. The petitioner contended that the respondent had issued the impugned orders without verifying the submission of "C" declaration forms. The petitioner claimed they were asked to provide proof for filing the forms and requested additional time, which was not considered before the orders were issued. Additionally, the respondent disallowed exemption for export sales, stating lack of documentary evidence. The petitioner expressed willingness to present all necessary documents if given the opportunity.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged that the "C" declaration forms were submitted for the assessment year 2007-08 but not for 2008-09. It was suggested that if the petitioner provided the required documents as directed, the respondent would reconsider the assessment for both years. After considering the submissions, the court noted that the petitioner had indeed submitted the "C" forms for 2007-08 but not for 2008-09. The court recognized that if given the chance to produce the forms and present their reply dated 19.05.2014, the petitioner could establish their tax exemption claim.

Consequently, the court decided to set aside the impugned assessment orders and remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit the necessary documents promptly, cooperate with any further requirements, and attend the inquiry as scheduled. The respondent was instructed to review the case, consider the petitioner's reply, and issue new orders promptly and in compliance with the law. The court emphasized expeditious resolution and closed the related Miscellaneous Petitions without costs.

---