M/S.Malikkan Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner - Iii

Held

The High Court clarified that the Deputy Commissioner's order merely directed the reopening of assessments, not their setting aside. It held that the petitioner's argument regarding the Deputy Commissioner's lack of suo moto revision power was premature, as the reassessment process was still pending. The Court affirmed that the petitioners would have ample opportunity to present their case and raise objections during the subsequent reassessment proceedings.

Facts

The petitioners, registered dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, had their assessments for 2011-12 and 2012-13 completed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner subsequently issued show cause notices under Section 9(2A) of the CST Act, proposing to reopen these assessments, citing prejudice to revenue due to fabricated C forms, and directed their reopening. The petitioners' revision against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner of State Goods and Service Taxes, leading to the present O.T. Revision before the High Court.

Key Issues

The key legal issue was whether the Deputy Commissioner had the power to set aside completed assessments through a direction to reopen under Section 9(2A of the CST Act, and if such an order constituted a suo moto revision beyond their jurisdiction. The Court primarily addressed whether the Deputy Commissioner's action was a final setting aside of assessment or merely a directive for reopening.