2017 (11) TMI 1316 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court quashes order, allows legal remedies, awards costs to petitioner, emphasizes vigilance in quasi-judicial actions.

M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of State Tax (formerly Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes), Ananthapuram

The Court quashed the impugned order, allowing the petitioner to pursue legal remedies against the fresh assessment order by respondent No.2. Costs of ... Principles of natural justice - jurisdiction under Section 32(2) of the Act - revisional powers of Commissioner - Held that: - the revisional power can be exercised by the competent authority in order to examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority, officer or person subordinate to him, under the provisions of the Act - It is evident from the impugned order that respondent No.1 has exercised her revisional power with reference to the final assessment proceedings dated 29-3-2014, which, as noted hereinbefore was set-aside by this Court in the Writ Petition and consequently it was no longer in existence when she has passed the impugned order in purported exercise of her revisional power. Respondent No.1 being a functionary occupying a reasonably high position and exercising her quasi-judicial power is expected to be vigilant and responsible while dealing with the rights of the assessees. We are not able to appreciate the callous and casual and negligent manner in which respondent No.1 has initiated the proceedings and passed the impugned order disregarding the fact of the assessment under revision not being in existence, as brought out by the petitioner in its objections filed before her. Impugned order is without jurisdiction and is quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:Challenge to assessment order based on lack of opportunity for personal hearing, validity of pre-revision show cause notice, exercise of revisional powers by respondent No.1, jurisdictional error in passing impugned order.Analysis:The Writ Petition was filed seeking to quash an order dated 2-8-2017 by respondent No.1. The petitioner, a dealer in cotton products, challenged an assessment order dated 29-3-2014 by respondent No.2, claiming lack of opportunity for a personal hearing. A Division Bench previously set aside the assessment order, instructing respondent No.2 to provide copies of documents and allow a personal hearing. However, respondent No.1 issued a pre-revision show cause notice in 2016 regarding exemptions allowed by respondent No.2. Despite the petitioner's objections citing ongoing proceedings before respondent No.2, respondent No.1 revised the assessment based on the 2014 order, which had been set aside.The Court noted that respondent No.1 erred in exercising revisional powers with reference to the 2014 order that was no longer valid. The Court emphasized that revisional power can be used to examine existing orders or proceedings. Respondent No.1's actions were deemed careless and negligent, disregarding the non-existence of the 2014 order. The Court quashed the impugned order, allowing the petitioner to pursue legal remedies against the fresh assessment order by respondent No.2. Costs of &8377; 10,000 were awarded to the petitioner, with the State Government directed to recover costs from the officer responsible for the impugned order.In conclusion, the Court found respondent No.1's exercise of revisional powers based on an invalidated order to be without jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the importance of vigilance and responsibility in quasi-judicial actions, criticizing respondent No.1's casual approach. The judgment highlights the need for authorities to act diligently and respect the rights of assesses, ensuring proper legal procedures are followed.