2021 (10) TMI 1167 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court directs reassessment for specified years, summons petitioner, no costs awarded

The court directed the second respondent to ensure the third respondent revisits the assessment for the specified years, procures any required inputs from ... Reversal of ITC - the assessment are sought to be re-opened and the ITC availed by the dealers are directed to be reversed, when a mismatch occurs - whether the instructions given by the first respondent through his letter in turn has been acted upon by the second respondent, by giving any direction to the third respondent? - HELD THAT:- If such an instruction has already been given, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to revisit the assessment for the two assessment years, and in this regard, if any further inputs or documents are required to verify the alleged mismatch, summons can be issued to the petitioner to get those documents and if any such summon is issued, it is open to the petitioner to make response to the said summons and accordingly, the exercise of revisiting the assessment order can be completed by the third respondent. There shall be a direction to the second respondent that, if the second respondent has not acted upon by giving any suitable direction to the third respondent in respect of the petitioner's case for the assessment years, an instruction can immediately be given to the third respondent, who on receipt of such instructions or already received the instructions, shall act upon by revisiting the assessment for the respective years and accordingly, complete the reassessment process - Petition disposed off. Issues:Prayer for a Writ of Mandamus for a Revised Assessment Order based on a directive issued by the first respondent.Analysis:The petitioner, a dealer under the TNVAT Act, filed returns for 2013-14 and 2014-15, facing proceedings due to sales bill mismatch. The petitioner represented the issue to the first respondent, who directed the second respondent to revisit the assessment for natural justice adherence. The second respondent was supposed to instruct the Assessing Officer (third respondent) accordingly. However, the petitioner claims no further communication was received from the third respondent post the directive, leaving the matter pending.The petitioner seeks a court direction for the third respondent to act upon the first respondent's directive and finalize the assessment for the mentioned years. The Government Advocate states that the petitioner did not provide bills for verification despite earlier summons, leading to a halt in the assessment process.The court considered the submissions and materials before it. The main issue is whether the second respondent instructed the third respondent as directed by the first respondent in the letter dated 12.04.2017. The court emphasizes that if the directive was not acted upon, the third respondent should revisit the assessment and issue summons to the petitioner for any necessary documents to complete the reassessment process.The court directs the second respondent to ensure the third respondent revisits the assessment for the specified years, procures any required inputs from the petitioner through summons, and completes the reassessment promptly. The writ petition is disposed of with the mentioned directions, and no costs are awarded.