The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the principle of natural justice, specifically the rule that nobody shall be a judge of his own cause, leading to the setting aside of the order of assessment.

Judgment

B.N. Mahapatra, J.

In the present writ petition, challenge has been made to the legality and validity of the Audit Visit Report dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure-2) issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-I Circle, Bhubaneswar and the order of assessment dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure6 series) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.3 under Section 42(4) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for short, “the OVAT Act”) for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2013 on the basis of such audit visit report.

2. Though several grounds have been taken in the writ petition, Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has confined his argument to one of the grounds of challenge for quashing the impugned order of assessment. According to Mr. Mohanty, the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar-I Circle, Bhubaneswar while preparing the Audit Visit Report has relied upon letter No.747 dated 21.01.2014 of the DCCT, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar and the materials contained therein regarding business transaction of the petitioner-company and thus abdicated his jurisdiction to the direction of the superior officer. The Audit Visit Report is nothing but outcome of influence and bias on the part of the Assessing Officer, on whose instigation, the Audit Visit Report has been prepared. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax-opposite party No.3 being the purported author of the Audit Visit Report could not have utilized the said report to assess the petitioner-company under Section 42 of the OVAT Act. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that a person cannot be a judge of his own cause. Hence, the impugned order of assessment dated 01.08.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax-opposite party No.3 on the basis of the Audit Visit Report, which again relied on the letter dated 21.01.2014 of the DCCT, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, vitiated and violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and others, (2012) 49 VST 33 (Orissa).

3. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue supporting the impugned order of assessment submitted that the impugned order of assessment suffers from no infirmity and illegality.

4. On rival contentions of the parties, the sole question that arises for consideration by this Court is whether opposite party No.3-Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar having issued letter No.747 dated 21.01.2014 relying upon which the Audit Visit Report was prepared is competent to assess the petitioner-company under Section 42 of the OVAT Act.

5. To adjudicate the issue, it is relevant to refer to the Audit Visit Report dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure-2) submitted under sub-rule (3) of Rule 45 in Form VAT 303 and the order of assessment dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure-6) passed on the basis of the Audit Visit Report to find out whether the Audit Visit Report has been prepared on the basis of the letter dated 21.01.2014 of DCCT, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar and the self-same DCCT, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar has passed the order of assessment dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure-6).

6. Relevant portion of the Audit Visit Report (Annexure-2) is extracted hereunder:

“But examination of books of accounts furnished by the dealer company and the letter received from the DCCT, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar bearing letter No.747 dated 21.01.2014 regarding the business transaction of the dealer the following information has been gathered regarding the sale in transit of the dealer for the period covered under audit:

1. The instant dealer enters into a prior agreement before the goods occasions interstate movement.

2. The perspective buyer offers the product specification of the goods to be purchased and accordingly goo