https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166428 An assessing officer who participated in the audit process or approved the audit visit report should not assess the same dealer, because such overlap offends the rule against bias and undermines fairness. The Court also treated the limitation under section 42(6) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 as running from the dealer's receipt of the audit visit report, and regarded the later amendment as clarificatory. On those principles, the assessments were quashed and remitted for fresh assessment by an uninvolved competent authority with an opportunity of hearing. No final finding was recorded on the alleged suppression of sales. en-us Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166428 An assessing officer who participated in the audit process or approved the audit visit report should not assess the same dealer, because such overlap offends the rule against bias and undermines fairness. The Court also treated the limitation under section 42(6) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 as running from the dealer's receipt of the audit visit report, and regarded the later amendment as clarificatory. On those principles, the assessments were quashed and remitted for fresh assessment by an uninvolved competent authority with an opportunity of hearing. No final finding was recorded on the alleged suppression of sales. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166428