2015 (8) TMI 1131 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court Allows Re-Assessment Without Prior Discussion on Rebate Eligibility

The High Court upheld the validity of the notice for re-assessment, allowing re-assessment based on the same material due to the absence of prior ... Suo Moto Re-assessment – Assessment order was passed in which rebate of entry tax on sale of forging was granted – Subsequently, notice was issued proposing to make re-assessment and as no reply was received, appropriate authority granted permission to initiate proceedings for re-assessment –Petitioner being aggrieved by issuance of notice and granting of permission, prayed for its quashing – Held that:- if assessing authority has reasons to believe that whole or any part of turnover had escaped assessment or any deduction or exemption had wrongly been allowed, assessing authority may after issuing notice to dealer and after making such inquiry, assess or re-assess dealer to tax according to law – In original assessment order there was no discussion or any finding as to how rebate was permissible to petitioner – If any manufacturing activity was carried on, rebate was not permissible – What would be effect of forging was left open to be decided in assessment proceedings as it requires evidence – There was sufficient reasons to believe for assessing authority to seek permission for reopening assessment – No reason to interfere in impugned notice issued – Petition dismissed – Decided against Assesse. Issues:1. Validity of notice issued for re-assessment under Section 29 (7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act.2. Permissibility of re-assessment based on the same material.3. Interpretation of the term 'reasons to believe' as per legal precedents.4. Eligibility criteria for rebate under Section 4 (6) of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2007.Issue 1: Validity of Notice for Re-assessmentThe petitioner, a registered dealer under various tax acts, challenged a notice for re-assessment issued for the assessment year 2009-10. The petitioner contended that the notice was unwarranted as there was no fresh material to justify it. The assessing authority had granted a rebate of entry tax previously, and the petitioner argued that the notice was based on existing material, amounting to a change of opinion, which is impermissible. The petitioner cited legal precedents to support their claim that re-assessment cannot be initiated without fresh material.Issue 2: Permissibility of Re-assessment Based on Same MaterialThe State, represented by the learned counsel, relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the concept of 'reasons to believe' for initiating re-assessment. The Supreme Court held that if there are reasonable grounds for the assessing authority to believe that tax has escaped assessment, re-assessment can proceed. The State also cited cases where re-assessment based on the same material was deemed permissible, especially when there was no prior discussion or finding on a crucial aspect, such as eligibility for rebate.Issue 3: Interpretation of 'Reasons to Believe'Legal precedents highlighted the importance of having a rational basis for the assessing authority to form a belief that tax has escaped assessment. The courts emphasized that the belief must be held in good faith and not be a mere pretense. The term 'reasons to believe' was interpreted to require grounds that are relevant and have a nexus with the possibility of escaped assessment, rather than being of an extraneous character.Issue 4: Eligibility Criteria for RebateSection 4 (6) of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2007 was analyzed to determine the eligibility for rebate. The provision stated that goods brought into a local area must be sold in the same form in the course of inter-state trade or commerce for a rebate to be permissible. Manufacturing activities could impact rebate eligibility, requiring evidence to ascertain the effect of such activities on the rebate claim.Conclusion:The High Court upheld the validity of the notice for re-assessment, finding sufficient reasons to believe for the assessing authority to seek permission for reopening the assessment. The court concluded that re-assessment based on the same material was permissible due to the lack of discussion or findings on crucial aspects like rebate eligibility. The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to present evidence to support their entitlement to rebate before the assessing authority.