Court invalidates VAT Officer's review of assessment orders, emphasizing lack of authority. Department can challenge AT's order.

The High Court held that the Value Added Tax Officer's review of assessment orders previously set aside by the Appellate Tribunal was impermissible. The Court found the review after 8 years without notice to the Petitioner unwarranted and emphasized the lack of authority for such actions. Consequently, the Court set aside all 24 impugned orders passed by the VATO, including those related to tax assessment and penalties under the DVAT Act. The Department was allowed to challenge the AT's order through legal remedies. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the Petitioner with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Review of assessment orders by VATO under DVAT Act after being set aside by AT

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of the Value Added Tax Officer (‘VATO’) of Ward No. 208 reviewing assessment orders that were previously challenged and set aside by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax (‘AT’). The VATO conducted a suo motu review of 24 assessment orders dated 1st July 2017, under Section 32 and Section 33 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (‘DVAT Act’). The Court noted that the VATO's review was impermissible as the original orders had already been set aside by the AT, making the review of non-existent orders unjustifiable.

The Court found that the VATO's exercise of suo motu review powers after 8 years without notice to the Petitioner was unwarranted. The Department's argument that some orders did not create tax demand was dismissed by the Court, emphasizing that the VATO had no authority to review orders that had already been set aside by the AT. The Court rejected the Department's explanation that the review was to give effect to the AT's orders, stating that there was no legal basis for the VATO's actions.

Consequently, the High Court set aside all 24 impugned orders passed by the VATO on 1st July 2017, including those related to default assessment of tax and interest under Section 32 and penalties under Section 33 of the DVAT Act. The Court also allowed the Department to preserve its rights to challenge the AT's order dated 16th June 2017 through appropriate legal remedies. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the Petitioner, with no order as to costs.

---