2015 (8) TMI 1241 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court quashes communication requesting officer attendance for trial. Assessing Officer should conduct fact-finding.

M/s Ran India Steels Pvt Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (ENT) Namakkal, The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC Tiruchengode (Town) Circle Tiruchengode

The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the communication from the Assistant Commissioner requesting the attendance of officers for trial ... Power to Assessment – Impugned order is challenged on ground that 1st respondent has no power of assessment, since same has been conferred on jurisdictional assessing authority -2nd respondent – Held that:- Admittedly 1st respondent, issued impugned notice and 2nd respondent conducted inspection at their factory premises and after spending whole day in assessing actual burning loss and actual consumption of electricity, after inspection, arrived at finding and based on finding 2nd respondent has also framed assessment – Therefore, it is not open to 1st respondent to undertake any inspection in guise of demonstration to make assessment – When petitioner has admittedly submitting assessments only to 2nd respondent, 1st respondent cannot embark upon fresh demonstration of the petitioner premises with the aid of the central excise department and the electricity board officials– Therefore, impugned communication of 1st respondent, requesting Assistant Executive Engineer, to depute responsible officer to attend work with respect to trial production is quashed – Decided in favour of Petitioner. Issues:Challenge to impugned order by Assistant Commissioner for assessment jurisdiction, Power of Enforcement Wing for inspection, Precedent from previous batch cases, Authority of Assessing Officer for fact-finding exercise, Access to petitioner's documents by different authorities.Analysis:The writ petition challenges an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) regarding assessment jurisdiction. The petitioner argues that the Assistant Commissioner lacks the power of assessment, which lies with the jurisdictional assessing authority. The petitioner contends that the Enforcement Wing does not have the authority to conduct independent demonstrations. A previous court order is cited to support the petitioner's claim that only the Assessing Officer should undertake fact-finding exercises.The petitioner further argues that the Assessing Officer alone should ascertain the quantum of loss of goods. The respondent acknowledges that the issue raised is covered by a previous court decision and requests the court to direct the Assessing Officer to conduct any necessary exercises. The court refers to the previous order, emphasizing the duty of the Assessing Authority to conduct fact-finding exercises to determine the legitimacy of refund claims under the VAT Act.The court notes that the Assistant Commissioner issued the impugned notice despite the petitioner submitting assessments only to the jurisdictional assessing officer. The court highlights that the Assessing Officer had already conducted inspections and made assessments for previous years. It is concluded that the Assistant Commissioner cannot undertake inspections for subsequent years when the Assessing Officer has already completed assessments.The court finds merit in the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer had already conducted assessments based on factory inspections. Access to the petitioner's documents by different authorities is deemed improper, especially when the petitioner is registered with the Assessing Officer. The court reiterates that the Assessing Officer alone should conduct fact-finding exercises, supporting the petitioner's request to prevent the Assistant Commissioner from visiting the premises.Ultimately, the court allows the writ petition, quashing the communication from the Assistant Commissioner requesting the attendance of officers for trial production. No costs are awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.