An assessment order must consider the relevant material placed on record by the assessee and exhibit proper application of mind; failure to do so may result in its quashing by the court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 issued in GSTIN:33AAAFJ3044K1ZN/2017-2018 passed by the respondent and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner assails an assessment order dated 28.12.2023 largely on the ground that the said order is non speaking.

2. The petitioner states that it is engaged in the wholesale and retail trading of grocery and agricultural produce. By an audit notice dated 04.05.2023, about 13 defects in the petitioner's returns were pointed out. Based on the petitioner's reply, it is stated that proceedings in respect of 6 defects were dropped. The petitioner further states that a show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 was received by him in respect of assessment year 2017- 2018. The said notice set out defects noticed by the audit team under 7' heads. The petitioner replied thereto on 09.10.2023. In spite of such reply, it is stated that the impugned order was issued confirming the entire proposal made in the show cause notice and also imposing penalty equivalent to 10% of the tax levied on the petitioner. The present writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the show cause notice, the reply dated 09.10.2023 and thereafter to the impugned order. He contended that the impugned order exhibits complete non application of mind and that said order is unreasoned. By way of illustration, learned counsel referred to the second head dealt with therein relating to 'turnover mismatch'. He submitted that the assessing officer referred to the petitioner's reply and thereafter merely recorded that the reply of the dealer is not acceptable. Likewise, in respect of the fifth head dealing with 'reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC)', he submitted that the petitioner's reply is set out in the impugned order, wherein the petitioner stated that ITC was availed and used only for taxable and zero-rated supplies, whereas the assessing officer recorded that ITC is liable to be reversed because the petitioner had used it partly for exempt supplies. By also referring to the seventh head relating to 'sundry creditors', learned counsel pointed out that the assessing officer recorded that relevant documents like invoices, bank statements and ledger copies were not produced. By turning to the reply dated 09.10.2023, he pointed out that the bank statement was given as a soft copy, as is evident from the list of enclosures to the reply.

4. Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He refutes the contention that a personal hearing was not provided by pointing out that such personal hearing was provided to the petitioner on more than one occasion i.e. 09.10.2023 and 14.12.2023.

5. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the tax liability of the petitioner under about 7' heads was determined therein. As regards turnover mismatch, the assessing officer set out the particulars provided by the petitioner, recorded that the petitioner had produced the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year 2017-2018 and thereafter recorded the following conclusion: “The reply of the dealer is not acceptable”. Thus, the assessing officer has merely recorded a conclusion in the nature of ipse dixit without any reasoning to support such conclusion.

6. As regards reversal of ITC, the petitioner/assessee stated that it had availed ITC and used the same exclusively for taxable and zero-rated supplies. After noticing such submission, the assessing officer has recorded the conclusion that ITC was used partly for effecting taxable supplies and partly for effecting exempt supplies. The latter conclusion appears to be clearly contrary to the submissions made by the assessee. As regards tax liability under the head 'sundry creditors', the petitioner/assessee stated that the paym