Officer without jurisdiction issues void VAT assessment orders despite petitioners' bona fide amnesty scheme request

Gujarat HC set aside VAT assessment orders passed by an officer lacking jurisdiction. Petitioners, property developers who believed they were selling immovable property, sought to avail amnesty scheme benefits but were denied adjournment. The assessing officer proceeded with ex parte best judgment assessment despite having no transferred jurisdiction and petitioners' bona fide request for time to utilize the amnesty scheme. Court held the officer was duty bound to respect such requests given the scheme's objective of expeditious dispute resolution, and the assessment orders were null and void due to jurisdictional defects.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority.
2. Legitimacy of the high-pitched assessment order.
3. Eligibility for the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority:
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer, Range-21, Junagadh, to issue the notice and make the assessment order. According to the petitioners, their jurisdiction was vested with Ghatak-85, and there was no transfer of proceedings to the second respondent as per Section 17 of the GVAT Act. The court found that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to make the assessment, rendering the impugned orders null and void.

Legitimacy of the High-Pitched Assessment Order:
The petitioners argued that the second respondent made a high-pitched best judgment assessment without considering their request to keep the proceedings in abeyance to avail the Amnesty Scheme. The court noted that the second respondent, in undue haste, passed an ex parte high-pitched best judgment assessment order, which was not justified and breached the principles of natural justice.

Eligibility for the Benefit under the Amnesty Scheme:
The petitioners contended that they were entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme announced by the Government of Gujarat. The second respondent, however, determined that the petitioners were not eligible for the scheme, labeling their case as an enforcement case. The court observed that the petitioners' case was not a search case and that the Amnesty Scheme allowed applications even in enforcement cases. The second respondent's decision on the petitioners' eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme was unwarranted.

Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized that the second respondent failed to respect the petitioners' request to adjourn the hearing to avail the Amnesty Scheme, thus violating principles of natural justice. The second respondent's actions were seen as an attempt to frustrate the petitioners' chances of obtaining the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme by making a high-pitched assessment, which was not permissible.

Conclusion:
The petitions were allowed, and the impugned assessment orders dated 27.9.2019 were quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities were directed to process the petitioners' applications under the Amnesty Scheme in accordance with law. It was clarified that if the petitioners do not avail or are not entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, the respondents may initiate assessment proceedings for the period in question.

---