M/S M P Bhandari vs. Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority's finding that the petitioner had not produced documents was factually incorrect, as evidenced by Annexure-D dated 29.06.2022, which showed that the petitioner had submitted relevant documents before the First Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court found the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Authority (R1) to be based on a factually erroneous premise and violative of the principles of natural justice, thus deserving to be quashed. The Court also noted that the petitioner had submitted returns on 11.01.2021. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Authority (R2) for reconsideration. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed on a factually incorrect premise, denying the opportunity to present evidence due to bonafide reasons, violates natural justice and warrants setting aside and remand.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M P Bhandari, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.11.2021 for September 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (R2), and an appeal order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-5 (R1). The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a re-do of the assessment for September 2021. The petitioner contended that due to health reasons and unavoidable circumstances, they could not appear before the Appellate Authority and produce supporting documents. The petitioner also stated that returns were submitted on 11.01.2022 due to health reasons.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority (R1) is violative of the principles of natural justice, considering the petitioner's inability to appear and produce documents due to health reasons? 2. Whether the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Authority (R2) for fresh consideration after setting aside the impugned orders? The petitioner argued that on account of health reasons and bonafide unavoidable circumstances, they were unable to appear before the Appellate Authority and produce relevant documents. They contended that if granted one more opportunity, they would prosecute the appeal. They also submitted that returns were filed late due to health issues. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to R2 for reconsideration after considering the documents produced before R1. The respondents argued that there was no merit in the petition and it was liable to be dismissed.