Court sets aside assessment order based on Web Report, directs reassessment with detailed procedures.

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the assessment order based on a Web Report. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority for reassessment following detailed procedures and directions outlined in a previous judgment. The Authority was directed to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing within eight weeks to ensure a fair process. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing a centralized mechanism to handle discrepancies and recommended studying procedures from other states for guidance.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against assessment order based on web report without details or enquiry.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the assessment order dated 29.09.2016 for the assessment year 2013-2014, arguing that the Assessing Authority unjustly passed the order based on a Web Report without providing details or conducting any inquiry. The petitioner's counsel highlighted a previous decision by the Court (WP.No.105 of 2016) that deemed such assessment methods inappropriate. The counsel emphasized the need for a centralized mechanism to handle cases of mismatch, as outlined in the previous judgment. The Additional Government Pleader acknowledged that the current case aligns with the previous decision and suggested that a similar order be passed. The previous judgment emphasized the necessity for a centralized mechanism to address discrepancies, preventing a multitude of unresolved cases and safeguarding revenue interests. The Court directed the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to establish detailed procedures for handling mismatches and evolving a centralized mechanism. The Court allowed all writ petitions, setting aside notices and orders for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officers in consultation with other relevant authorities. The judgment emphasized the importance of a fair process allowing dealers to present their cases and recommended studying procedures adopted by other states for guidance.

The Court allowed the present writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Authority. The Authority was instructed to reassess following the procedures and directions outlined in the previous batch of cases. The Assessing Authority must grant the petitioner a personal hearing before finalizing the assessment, ensuring compliance within eight weeks from the date of the order. The judgment concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petition without imposing any costs.

---