2021 (3) TMI 1022 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court denies vacation of interim order under Article 226(3) emphasizing burden of proof on Assessing Officer.

M/s. J.K. Cement Limited, M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Limited Versus State Of Rajasthan, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer And Others

M/s. J.K. Cement Limited, M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Limited Versus State Of Rajasthan, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Assistant ... Issues:1. Consideration of applications under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of an interim order.2. Validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the respondent - Assessing Officer.3. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Analysis:1. The judgment dealt with applications under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of an interim order. The respondent - Department argued that the Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction as final adjudication is pending, citing various judgments. On the contrary, the petitioner's counsel highlighted that the interim order was granted after due consideration of their submissions, emphasizing the lack of opportunity for a reply.2. The validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the respondent - Assessing Officer was extensively discussed. The petitioner contended that the reassessment proceedings were arbitrary and a mere change of opinion, as a detailed assessment order had already been passed after thorough examination of records. The petitioner denied selling diesel, which was alleged in the notice, and argued that the notice lacked jurisdiction and should be quashed.3. The Court analyzed the jurisdiction to entertain the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the respondent - Department failed to provide evidence of the alleged sale of diesel, the Court emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Assessing Officer. The Court noted that the reassessment proceedings seemed to lack substantial evidence and were akin to a fishing expedition, ultimately rejecting the applications under Article 226 (3) and allowing the interim order to continue.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's reasoning behind its decision, maintaining the integrity of the original text and legal terminology used in the judgment.