2019 (2) TMI 1222 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside assessment orders, directs reconsideration by Assessing Officer based on raised objections

Tvl. A.R.P. & Co. Versus The State Tax Officer, The Commercial Tax Officer, (Enforcement), Namakkal.

The court allowed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders for multiple years, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider objections ... Validity of assessment order - principles of natural justice - main grievance of the petitioner against these impugned assessment orders is that the same were passed without application of mind to the objections raised by the petitioner before the Enforcement Officials - Held that:- Perusal of the impugned orders would show that the Assessing Officer has not discussed about the objections raised by the petitioner before the Enforcement Official. In any event, when the notice of proposal is sent, the petitioner, irrespective of the fact that they filed their objections before the Enforcement Officials, ought to have filed their reply to the notice of proposal - In this case, it has not been done so. However, since the Assessing Officer has also not considered the objections raised by the petitioner before the Enforcement Officials, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met, if one opportunity is given to petitioner to file objection and the case be reheard - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenging assessment orders for multiple assessment years due to lack of consideration of objections raised before Enforcement Officials.Analysis:The writ petitions challenge assessment orders for various assessment years, alleging that the Assessing Officer did not consider objections raised by the petitioner before Enforcement Officials. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without due consideration of their objections, leading to a grievance that the Assessing Officer unjustly assumed no objections were filed. Citing a Division Bench order, the petitioner contended that objections raised before Enforcement Officials should have been considered by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, countered that the petitioner did not reply to the notice of proposal, leaving the Assessing Officer with no choice but to conclude the assessment. The impugned orders stemmed from an inspection by Enforcement Officials, with the petitioner claiming to have submitted objections, which the Government Advocate did not dispute. However, the failure to respond to the notice of proposal was highlighted.Upon review, the court observed that the Assessing Officer did not address the objections raised before Enforcement Officials. Despite the requirement for the petitioner to reply to the notice of proposal, which was not done, the court deemed it necessary for the Assessing Officer to consider the objections in the interest of justice. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders to be treated as show cause notices.The court directed the petitioner to submit objections within two weeks, followed by a fresh assessment order by the Assessing Officer within six weeks after a personal hearing. It clarified that no opinion was expressed on the objections or the original assessment, leaving it to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The judgment concluded without imposing costs, closing the related miscellaneous petitions.