A R S Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the reassessment order passed by Respondent No. 1 was indeed violative of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner had repeatedly requested the documents relied upon in the proposition notices, but not all of them were furnished. This failure to provide the necessary documents prevented the petitioner from effectively filing their reply and objections. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned reassessment order and demand notice. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 1 for reconsideration. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before Respondent No. 1 on December 20, 2021, on which date the respondent was to provide the entire file for inspection. After inspection and request for necessary documents, which were to be furnished, the petitioner could then submit their reply and objections, after which Respondent No. 1 would pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that a reassessment order passed without providing the assessee with all the documents relied upon by the authority, despite repeated requests, is a violation of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, A.R.S. Enterprises, sought to quash a reassessment order and demand notice dated April 22, 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent No. 1). The assessment period in question was 2016-17. The petitioner had received a proposition notice on November 29, 2018, followed by a revised proposition notice on March 31, 2021. The petitioner repeatedly requested certified copies of documents relied upon by the respondent in these notices. Despite these requests and assurances that documents would be furnished, the petitioner claims not all documents were provided, and the reassessment order was passed without affording a proper opportunity to file objections or a personal hearing. The revenue contended that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity but failed to avail it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the reassessment order passed by Respondent No. 1 is violative of the principles of natural justice due to the non-furnishing of all relied-upon documents to the petitioner, thereby contravening the right to a fair hearing? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the reassessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles because Respondent No. 1 failed to provide all the documents mentioned in the proposition notices, despite repeated requests. This prevented the petitioner from filing a proper reply and objections. The petitioner relied on the principle that a party must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, which includes access to the evidence against them. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed, asserting that the petitioner had already been granted sufficient and reasonable opportunity, which they failed to utilize.