2024 (7) TMI 1392 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reassessment Order Overturned; Authority to Reevaluate FYs 2006-09; Must Address Limitations in 3 Months with Cooperation.

M/s. Sree Maa Laxmi Agencies Versus The State of Tripura & others

The HC set aside the reassessment order concerning financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority for ... Challenge to revisional order - assessment proceedings for the financial year 2006-07, barred on grounds of limitation in view of Section 33 of the TVAT Act having been undertaken on 15/18.11.2012 i.e. after five years - assessment order and reassessment order are based upon audit reports which are presumptuous in nature or not - formation of independent opinion or not - levy of penalty without a proper show cause notice in terms of Section 45 (6) of the TVAT Act, 2004. HELD THAT:- The reassessment order dated 14.05.2019 passed on a previous remand by the revisional authority vide order dated 16.08.2016 has once again been set aside taking into account all the grounds urged by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 and once again the matter has been remanded for reassessment. As such, the issues being canvassed before this Court are not open in that sense. The Assessing Authority has to apply its mind to all the grounds both of law and facts being raised by the petitioner in respect of each of the financial years in question. Since a ground of limitation has been taken so far as the assessment proceedings of the financial year 2006-07 is concerned, the Assessing Authority shall determine the question of limitation first upon hearing the assessee and only if he is satisfied that the assessment exercise carried out for the financial year 2006-07 is not barred by limitation in terms of Section 33 of the TVAT Act, he would proceed to determine other grounds raised on merits so far as that financial year is concerned. It is deemed proper to direct the Assessing Authority to conclude the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order - petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging common impugned revisional order dated 06.02.2024 under Section 72 of the TVAT Act, 2004 concerning financial years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the common impugned order on various grounds. Firstly, it was argued that the assessment proceedings for the financial year 2006-07 were time-barred under Section 33 of the TVAT Act, as they were undertaken after five years. Secondly, it was contended that the assessment and reassessment orders were based on presumptuous audit reports, and the Assessing Authority did not form an independent opinion but relied on the audit objections. Additionally, it was highlighted that the imposition of penalties lacked a proper show cause notice as per Section 45(6) of the TVAT Act.The petitioner's counsel argued that the revisional order did not address these issues specifically, making it non-speaking and lacking proper application of mind. The prolonged litigation over twelve years was also emphasized, leading the petitioner to approach the Court. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the matter was left open for the Assessing Authority to decide on all raised points, as per the revisional authority's order. The reassessment order for the mentioned financial years was set aside, remanding the matter for reassessment.The Court acknowledged the protracted nature of the assessment proceedings spanning over twelve years. The reassessment order from 2019, following a previous remand in 2016, was again set aside based on the petitioner's grounds. The Assessing Authority was directed to address all legal and factual issues raised by the petitioner for each financial year. A specific directive was given to determine the limitation issue for the financial year 2006-07 first, followed by addressing other raised grounds. The Assessing Authority was instructed to conclude the reassessment within three months, emphasizing the petitioner's cooperation in the process. The Court clarified that they did not delve into the merits of the parties' contentions.Finally, all three revision petitions were disposed of, with pending applications also being resolved.