High Court Dismisses Challenges to Assessment Orders, Highlights Petitioners' Defaults and Appeal Options Available.

The petitions challenging assessment orders under Sec.62 of the Act were dismissed by the HC. The Court found the petitioners' arguments unmeritorious, aligning with the Division Bench's ruling that emphasized the petitioners' continuous defaults and failure to utilize statutory remedies. The Court upheld the respondent's position, indicating the availability of appeal remedies.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment under Sec.62 of the Act
2. Compliance with yardsticks prescribed under Sec.62
3. Regularization of the return for defaulted month
4. Prayers in the filed petitions
5. Judgment based on Division Bench ruling

Analysis:

1. The petitions involved challenges against the assessment orders issued by the 1st respondent under Sec.62 of the Act, fixing tax liability at high amounts due to the petitioner's failure to file returns from November 2018. The petitioners argued that the assessment orders did not comply with the prescribed standards under Sec.62.

2. The petitioners highlighted that they had regularized the return for the defaulted month, indicating an attempt to rectify the non-compliance with filing requirements. This action was evidenced by documents submitted as Ext.P2.

3. The prayers in the filed petitions sought to quash the assessment orders (Ext.P1) issued by the 1st respondent through a writ of certiorari or other appropriate orders, along with requesting incidental reliefs and costs related to the proceedings.

4. The judgment was based on a Division Bench ruling dated 23.10.2019, which set a precedent against the petitioners. The ruling emphasized that continuous defaults in filing returns, responding to notices, and failure to utilize available remedies like subsection (2) of Section 62, weakened the petitioners' challenges against the best judgment assessments. The ruling also highlighted that the petitioners had a statutory appeal remedy against the assessment orders.

5. After considering arguments from both sides, the Court found that the issues raised in the petitions were not in favor of the petitioners but aligned with the respondent revenue. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitions, stating that they lacked merit based on the Division Bench's dictum and the availability of statutory appeal remedies for the petitioners.

---