Non-consideration of taxpayer reply led to setting aside of assessment order and remand for fresh hearing.

Non-consideration of the taxpayer's reply, supported by prima facie material, showed non-application of mind in the assessment order. The reply asserted that medicines were supplied by other entities, tax was collected in their invoices and remitted, and that no rent was charged for allowing use of the premises as a canteen because it was only an additional facility for visitors. As these explanations were not examined in the impugned order, the order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing, including a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment order was liable to be set aside for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply regarding the sale of medicines and the levy of tax on use of premises for a canteen, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The petitioner produced prima facie material indicating that the medicines were supplied by other entities, that tax had been collected in the invoices issued by them, and that the taxes were stated to have been remitted. The petitioner also stated that no rent was collected for permitting a third party to use the premises as a canteen, as it was intended as an additional facility for visitors. These aspects were not taken into account in the impugned order, which disclosed non-application of mind to the reply submitted in response to the show cause notice.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, including a personal hearing.

---