TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te in haste towards the end. The assessment proceedings may have started earlier but the assessment was put on fast track after this Court directed the authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner for refund of the tax for the previous years. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly with an open mind. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. The orders of assessments having been passed in haste without observing the principles of natural justice, deserve to be set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - CWP No. 11769 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 15-2-2017 - Rajesh Bindal And Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ. Mr. Sandeep Goyal and Mr. Varun Chadha, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Radhika Suri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Dilsher Singh Mann, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ORDER Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice, no penalty proceedings having been initiated under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act'), despatch of order by e-mail without there being any enabling provision and allegation of mala fide has also been levelled against the officer concerned. Referring to the discrepancies in the stand taken by the State in the official reply and the officer concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to para No. 18 of the official reply, wherein it was stated that the order of assessment was sent to the petitioner via mail at 10.25 AM on 6.5.2015, whereas in para No. 5 of the reply filed by the officer concerned, as he has been impleaded as respondent in person, it is stated that the order was dictated on 5.5.2015 and it was sent through e-mail to the petitioner from Patiala, where he was on official duty on that day. He further submitted that no penalty could be levied for the reason that order was reserved on 10.3.2015 only with reference to the assessment and not for levy of penalty, for which separate proceedings were initiated, which were not concluded. If order had been dictated on 5.5.2015, why it was not despatched by him on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Rule 48 of the Rules provides that the Designated Officer, after considering objections and documentary evidence, if any filed by the person, shall pass order of assessment in writing, which shall clearly state reasons for assessment. Certified copy of the assessment order along with demand notice is to be supplied free of cost to the party. Certified copy cannot possibly be sent through e-mail. That is the reason, there is no enabling provision in the Rules in this regard. The order takes its shape only after it is written/typed and is duly signed by the officer concerned, however, in the case in hand, on inspection by the counsel for the petitioner, of the assessment file, on 25.5.2015 and 1.7.2015, signed copy of the assessment order was not on file. Meaning thereby what was served upon the petitioner through e-mail was nothing more than a waste paper as on file, even upto 1.7.2015, there was no signed order available. In the absence of a signed order, there was no possibility of preparing a certified copy thereof to be sent to the person concerned in compliance to Rule 48(3) of the Rules. In support of his plea, reliance was placed upon Kalra Glue Factory v. Sales Tax Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on 6.5.2015. The objection regarding jurisdiction was rejected and so the prayer for crossexamination. No penalty was imposed, though notice was issued. All 'C' and 'F' forms were rejected. The petitioner had made a claim of consignment sales only to the extent of ₹ 11,68,22,576/-, but rejection was to the tune of ₹ 35 crores. That shows total non-application of mind, rather, the exercise was to ensure that some how or the other, the petitioner is not issued any refund, which was due to it. Though at that stage, the Excise Taxation Officer was in a hurry to pass the assessment order without affording fair opportunity of hearing, but on 22.1.2016 suo-motu rectification was made therein. Demand was substantially reduced. As the Excise and Taxation Officer had been apprised about filing and listing of the petition in this court, he ensured that the writ petition becomes infructuous, as copy of the order was sent through e-mail on 6.5.2015 at 10.25 AM. The writ petition bearing CWP No. 8895 of 2015 was dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding transfer of the case, the submission is that the communication dated 11.12.2014 is a created document. It refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2013 clearly shows that enough opportunities were afforded to the petitioner. The request made by him for providing the documents was never pressed later on, hence, abandoned. Regarding jurisdiction, she referred to the letter dated 11.12.2014 from the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer. In fact, the notice issued on 9.1.2015 mentions about the letter transferring the proceedings to the present Excise and Taxation Officer. The petitioner had appeared on the date fixed when new officer had conducted the proceedings. Even at that stage, no request was made for providing documents. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking decision of its claim for grant of refund, order was passed by this court on 20.2.2015 to decide the same within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. She further submitted that vide letter dated 27.2.2015, the petitioner was informed that all future notices will be sent through e-mail only. The order was reserved on 10.3.2015. Principles of natural justice were fully complied with and the petitioner had been participating in the assessment proceedings. Separate show cause notice for penalty was issued under the VAT Act m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Excise and Taxation Officer for dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner. It was overact on the part of the department. He further submitted that assessment order for the year 2011-12 was set aside by the Appellate Authority while finding the same to be without jurisdiction as there was no valid order of transfer of jurisdiction. With reference to the assessment year 2009-10, it was submitted that the notice for penalty was issued only under the VAT Act. While issuing notice under the Central Act, there was no reference for initiation of penalty proceedings. The petitioner filed reply to the issues raised by the department. As there was no notice for penalty under the Central Act, the petitioner had no opportunity to respond to the same. Prayer for supply of documents made by the petitioner in the very beginning and was reiterated thereafter. It is not to be repeated on every date of hearing specially once the officer was apprised of the same and was conscious of the fact. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred records. In our opinion, the assessment orders deserve to be set aside merely on the ground of violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was listed in this Court on 7.5.2015. Having come to know about the filing of Civil Writ Petition No. 8895 of 2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 on 4.5.2015, which was listed in Court on 6.5.2015, orders of assessment were dispatched through e-mail on 6.5.2015 before the case was taken up for hearing. He was not in office at that time. Though in the leave record of Upinderjit Singh Sodhi, ETO, Sangrur, the Designated Officer produced as Annexure P-18, shows that on 6.5.2015 from 11.00 am to 5.00 pm, he was on casual leave for an urgent work, however, in his affidavit filed, he stated that the order was sent by him through e-mail from Patiala, where he was on official duty. It shows the haste. Admittedly, officer was not in his office and is trying to suggest that he was carrying official files with him, while he was away to Patiala. The Designated Officer passed order of assessment on 5.5.2015 and sent copy thereof through e-mail on 6.5.2016. The assessment order is dated 5.5.2015 and demand notice is dated 6.5.2015. Order-sheet of 6.5.2015 shows that order was released on that day. The haste in which the Designated Officer acted is for the reason that CWP No. 9038 of 2015 fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition, the Assessing Authority precipitated his action and served the copy of the order by e-mail to the petitioner before the case was taken up for hearing. A perusal of copy of the order-sheet at Annexure P-11, shows that though the order is dated 5.5.2015, but it was signed by the officer on 15.5.2015. Haste in passing the order is evident from the fact that though the claim for consignment sales was only to the extent of ₹ 11,68,22,576/-, however, the rejection was for ₹ 35 crores. That shows that the officer was quite in a hurry to somehow pass order without even examining the records. Having noticed the blunder committed by him, he suo-moto passed rectification order on 22.1.2016. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly with an open mind. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasi-judicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Reference can be made to Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs Union of India and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
