Best judgment assessment fails where the statutory notice does not specify required documents and ignores material already filed.

Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 requires the assessing authority to first form an opinion that verification is needed and then issue a notice specifying the documents or evidence to be produced. A best judgment assessment can follow only on failure to comply with that notice. Here, the notice was a printed form, identified no particular documents, and did not address the material already filed by the assessee; the later letter also did not specify any further compliance. The statutory preconditions were therefore not met, and the best judgment assessment order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the best judgment assessment under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 could be sustained when the notice did not specify the documents required to be produced and the assessee had already furnished relevant material.

Analysis: Section 23(2) requires the assessing authority to first form an opinion that the return needs verification and then serve a notice specifying the documents or evidence to be produced. A best judgment assessment can follow only if the dealer fails to comply with such notice. The notice in the present case was in a printed format, contained no particulars of the documents sought, and did not meaningfully deal with the material already furnished by the assessee. The subsequent letter also failed to identify any additional compliance required. In these circumstances, the statutory preconditions for best judgment assessment were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The assessment order based on best judgment was unsustainable and was quashed.

---