Court orders Assessing Officer to provide documents, allow submissions, schedule hearing, and pass fresh orders.

The court held that the Assessing Officer erred in not providing the petitioner with necessary documents to respond effectively. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with specific directions to provide copies of returns, allow submission of necessary documents within a specified period, schedule a personal hearing, and pass fresh orders based on the submissions and in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and no costs were awarded in the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against assessment order for the assessment year 2004-05 based on turnover rates, failure to respond to notices, loss of records due to natural disaster, denial of opportunity to submit necessary documents, and lack of reasoning in the impugned order.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged the assessment order for the assessment year 2004-05, which proposed different turnover rates for purchases from unregistered dealers and sales of imported copiers. Initially, a writ petition was filed challenging the relevant provision of the Sales Tax Act, but it was dismissed. Subsequently, new notices were issued proposing a higher tax rate due to the absence of Form C declaration. The petitioner, citing loss of records in a flood, requested copies of returns and a personal hearing to obtain duplicate C forms. The Assessing Officer, however, proceeded with the assessment at a higher rate without considering the petitioner's circumstances.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Assessing Officer should have provided copies of returns to enable the submission of necessary documents, considering the loss of records in the flood. The Additional Government Pleader contended that the petitioner had opportunities to respond but failed to do so adequately. The court noted the petitioner's request for copies of returns to collect necessary documents and found that the Assessing Officer should have given another opportunity before finalizing the assessment.

The court held that the Assessing Officer erred in not providing the petitioner with the necessary documents to respond effectively. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with specific directions: to provide copies of returns to the petitioner, allow submission of necessary documents within a specified period, schedule a personal hearing, and pass fresh orders based on the submissions and in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and no costs were awarded in the judgment.

---