Principles of natural justice must be upheld in tax assessment proceedings, ensuring access to documents and opportunity for representation.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is an assessee under the K.G.S.T Act , 1963.

For the year 1990-91, he showed an interstate sales turnover of Rs.3,00,000/-. Assessment were, however, finalised by the assessing authority estimating the turnover of Rs.24,20,000/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment, petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. That order was set aside by the appellate authority remanding the matter for fresh consideration by order dated 17/04/1993, as evidenced by Ext.P1. A revised order was passed on 27/01/1996 which is again a subject matter of challenge. That order was again set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and a revised order was passed by order dated 20/05/1997. This order was again challenged, on the ground that details of the alleged check post records were not furnished to the petitioner herein and he was not given a fair opportunity to verify its contents, and the revised assessment was set aside by order dated 15/04/1998. Hence, the assessment was proposed to be completed after refixing the total and taxable turnover of Interstate O.P.No.4566/2003-R Sales at Rs.8,60,000/-, as evidenced by Ext.P2. This was objected to by the petitioner vide Ext.P3. Overruling the objections, assessments were completed. Ultimately, this objection was challenged before the Tribunal. Ext.P4 order was passed by the Tribunal on 19/02/2000 allowing the appeal, again remanding the matter. Pursuant to the remand order, pre-assessment notice was issued vide Ext.P5, which is under challenge in this original petition.

2. The ground for remanding the matter by the Tribunal as evidenced by Ext.P4 is that the assessment was made rejecting the objection of the petitioner without giving him the copies of the declarations in check post and without affording an opportunity to cross-examine those persons. The Tribunal relied on the decision reported in K.M.Mohammed v.The Intelligence Officer and others [(1999) 7 KTR 378] and directed that the copies of the Check post declarations shall be furnished to the petitioner and after making proper enquiries of the genuineness of the transactions depicted in the said declarations and after considering the explanations of the petitioner/appellant and after hearing the appellant fresh order shall be passed. Therefore, the revised O.P.No.4566/2003-R assessment was passed on the third round of litigation and the Tribunal found that the petitioner ought to be given copies of the declarations in the check post. Normally, if the declarations are not available, that is a matter which ought to have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal so that the Tribunal could have passed appropriate orders either allowing the appeal of the assessee or passing such orders as may be deemed appropriate in the situation. No such attempt was made by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, he sought to justify the non availability of the information of the declarations in the Check Post in Ext.P5 notice, now issued, stating that they are not available in the Check Post after a period of 12 years. Why this was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the matter was pending before it or atleast by filing review application is not, however, stated anywhere by filing any counter affidavit. Further, the Assessing Officer thinks that instead of giving copies of the declaration, copies of the register maintained in the check post will be a substitute to comply with the principles of natural justice. First of all, the assessing officer has no such power to substitute something in the place of some other that has been directed by the Tribunal to give. At any rate, since this is a notice proposing to revise the assessment they cannot place O.P.No.4566/2003-R reliance on any material other than those referred to in the notice. Whether that will justify a revised assessment is a subject matter to be challenged in an appropriate forum, that is left open. For the present, I need only say that the various