Court quashes assessment orders for deficient notices and documentation, remits for fresh consideration.

The court quashed the revised assessment orders for the years 2011-12 to 2015-16 due to deficient pre-revision notices and lack of necessary documentation provided for verification. The matter was remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, with instructions to issue detailed show cause notices, allow for a personal hearing, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. The court emphasized that delays caused by the petitioner could be addressed accordingly. All writ petitions were allowed with no costs imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging revised assessment orders due to lack of requisite particulars in pre-revision notices and failure to provide necessary documentation for verification.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in Home appliances, challenged revised assessment orders for the years 2011-12 to 2015-16 issued by the second respondent. The petitioner contended that the pre-revision notices lacked necessary particulars, hindering their ability to respond adequately. The petitioner's accountant also sought relevant information from the second respondent, which was not provided. The impugned orders reversed input tax credit (ITC) based on discrepancies, prompting the filing of writ petitions.

The petitioner relied on a previous decision by the court to argue that the pre-revision notices were deficient in essential details, preventing proper objections. Additionally, the petitioner argued that if there were discrepancies, action should be taken against the defaulting seller, not the purchaser, citing a previous court decision to support this position.

The Additional Government Pleader defended the actions of the second respondent, stating that the petitioner was given opportunities to respond to the notices but failed to do so. It was argued that factual disputes should be addressed before the appropriate authority through an appeal rather than through writ petitions.

Upon examining the show cause notices, the court found them lacking in crucial details necessary for reconciliation of discrepancies. The court referred to a circular directing Assessing Officers to provide detailed mismatch transaction data in cases of discrepancies. The court highlighted that proper procedures were not followed by the Assessing Officer in the present case.

The court concluded that the impugned orders should be quashed, and the matter remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent was instructed to conduct a thorough inquiry, issue a show cause notice with all necessary particulars, provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. The court emphasized that any delays caused by the petitioner could be recorded and addressed accordingly.

In the final decision, all the writ petitions were allowed, with no costs imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---