The principles of natural justice must be upheld in tax assessments; inadequate opportunity for hearing is grounds for quashing an assessment order.

JUDGMENT

Akil Kureshi, CJ. - The petitioner has challenged an order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala demanding a sum of Rs.1,18,79,583/- by way of unpaid taxes with interest and penalty for the assessment year 2015-16 under TRIPURA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT . The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 23rd March, 2021 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes rejecting the petitioners’ application for rectification of the assessment order. These orders are challenged primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice which are canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner in following manner:

(i) According to the petitioner, after certain hearings before the Assessing Officer, further hearing was fixed on 23.11.2020. On 23.11.2020, the representative of the petitioner company was present to advance his arguments before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer could not conduct the hearing. Thereafter, there was no further communication or notice from the Assessing Officer to the petitioner or its representative till the order of assessment was passed on 26.02.2021. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the assessment order was passed without completing the hearing of the assessment proceedings.

(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer in the impugned order has compared the dealer’s value with “office value” and the difference between two is taken as undisclosed sale value for the purpose of demanding further taxes. Counsel submitted that this office value was gathered by the Assessing Officer behind the back of the petitioner and utilized in the order of assessment without sharing it with the petitioner.

(iii) Counsel further submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to take into account several documents on record and erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not produced the F-Form along with the return but produced only at the time of the assessment and therefore the same was considered as interstate sale.

(iv) The Assessing Officer failed to exercise the power of rectification provided under section 74 of the TVAT Act though strong grounds were made out by the petitioner.

(v) The case of the petitioner also is that due to high number of cases of Corona in the country including in Kolkata where the Head Office of the petitioner company is situated, a request was made to the Assessing Officer for virtual hearing. The Assessing Officer, however, did not grant any such liberty.

[2] On the other hand the case of the department is that no one was present on behalf of the petitioner before the Assessing Officer in the first half of 23rd November, 2020. The Assessing Officer had other commitments in the second half and therefore the hearing could not be conducted on that day. Thereafter, several notices were sent to the petitioner for fresh dates of hearing, however, the representative of the petitioner did not participate. The Assessing Officer, therefore, had no choice but to conclude the hearing upon which the impugned order of assessment was passed.

[3] Learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that the office value of the goods is nothing but the value indicated in the transportation permits granted to the petitioner for movement of the goods. Such value is very much available to the petitioner and thus the Assessing Officer has not taken into account any material which the petitioner was not in possession of. The Government counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed a reasoned order. If the petitioner has any grievance abou