2017 (5) TMI 1120 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ petitions dismissed, re-assessment order upheld. Compliance emphasized in assessment process.

H.S. Vishwanath Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the re-assessment order and rejection of rectification applications. It found no merit in the ... Validity of reassessment order - Section 42(9)(c) of the KVAT Act - principles of natural justice - Held that: - it is obvious that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities by the assessing authority for filing the relevant documents and for stating his position. Moreover, even the notice is sued u/s 39(1) r/w Section 72(2), 36 and 37 of the KVAT Act, was duly served on the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in claiming that during the re-assessment proceedings, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Once an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents within a period of seven days, the petitioner was duty-bound to avail an opportunity. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues:1. Prayers for quashing re-assessment order and affording an opportunity of hearing.2. Allegations of passing re-assessment order without notice and subsequent rectification applications.3. Rejection of rectification applications and demand notice issued.4. Contentions regarding violation of natural justice principles.5. Respondent's justifications for re-assessment and rejection of rectification applications.6. Judicial analysis of opportunities of hearing and rectification application rejections.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the re-assessment order dated 29/04/2014 and requested an opportunity of hearing for the tax period 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2008. The petitioner claimed that the re-assessment order was passed without serving any notice, leading to grievances.2. The petitioner alleged that the re-assessment order was passed without notice, followed by rejection of rectification applications. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the rectification applications on various grounds, including the absence of necessary documents and repeated failures to comply with submission requirements.3. Subsequent to the rejection of rectification applications, a demand notice was issued to the petitioner for the alleged tax, interest, and penalty imposed by the re-assessment order. The petitioner's repeated attempts for rectification were met with rejection, leading to further legal actions.4. The petitioner contended that the re-assessment order and rejection of rectification applications violated the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the lack of opportunities of hearing and procedural fairness. The petitioner's counsel argued that the actions of the assessing authority were unjust and warranted interference by the Court.5. The respondent, represented by the learned AGA, defended the re-assessment order and rejection of rectification applications. The respondent highlighted that ample opportunities were provided to the petitioner for submission of necessary documents, and the petitioner's failure to comply justified the actions taken by the assessing authority.6. The Court analyzed the opportunities of hearing provided to the petitioner during the re-assessment proceedings and the subsequent rejection of rectification applications. The Court observed that the assessing authority had given multiple chances to the petitioner to submit required documents, and the rejection of rectification applications was justified based on non-compliance by the petitioner.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims. The judgment upheld the actions of the assessing authority regarding the re-assessment order and rejection of rectification applications, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements and availing opportunities of hearing provided during the assessment process.