Court remands case for fresh assessment due to delays, quashes ex parte order, releases bank account.

The court remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment proceedings due to discrepancies in the process, particularly the unjustified delay in passing the assessment order. The court quashed the ex parte assessment order, directing the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer with relevant materials. The court also ordered the release of the petitioner's bank account from coercive measures until the assessment process is completed.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bhabua for the financial year 2013-14 under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the assessment proceedings.
3. Petitioner's right to challenge the assessment order through a writ petition without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal.
4. Arguments regarding the issuance of notice, absence of the assessee, and delay in passing the assessment order.
5. Decision on remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the quashing of the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bhabua for the financial year 2013-14, which included Bihar Value Added Tax, interest, and penalty totaling &8377; 22,16,659. The petitioner contended that the assessment was conducted ex parte without granting them an opportunity, alleging a violation of natural justice principles.

2. The petitioner argued that the ex parte assessment order should be quashed due to the violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner claimed that the proceedings were held without giving them a chance to present their case, as evidenced by the timeline of events from the issuance of the notice to the passing of the assessment order. The petitioner asserted their right to challenge the assessment through a writ petition without being obligated to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal.

3. The respondent's counsel refuted the petitioner's contentions, emphasizing that the petitioner was duly notified and failed to appear before the Assessing Officer despite communication attempts. The respondent argued that since the petitioner had statutory remedies of appeal, second appeal, and revision available, there was no need for the court's intervention.

4. Upon hearing both parties, the court noted discrepancies in the assessment process, particularly the delay between the notice date and the actual passing of the assessment order. The court observed that despite the initial notice and communication attempts, the order was unexpectedly delayed for nine months without further engagement with the assessee. The court found this delay unjustified and indicated that the Assessing Officer should have issued a fresh notice to allow the assessee to present their case.

5. Consequently, the court decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for conducting fresh assessment proceedings in compliance with the law. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the assessment order dated 12.6.2017, and directed the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer with all relevant materials on a specified date. Additionally, the court ordered the release of the petitioner's bank account from any coercive measures until the assessment process is finalized by the Assessing Officer.

---