Page 103 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

2020 ] DELPHI TVS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), CHENNAI 61
Assessing Officer was left with no other option except to pass the orders of as-
sessment.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
5. The point for consideration in these cases is as to whether the as-
sessment orders were passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the peti-
tioner.
6. It is seen that originally notices of proposal dated 21-2-2019 were is-
sued to the assessee in respect of the subject matter of assessment years. It is fur-
ther seen that on receipt of such notices, the assessee through their letters dated
15-3-2019, requested the Assessing Officer to give them time up to 15th April,
2019 for submission of reply by stating that they need to collect more data to jus-
tify their time and that they are also preparing GSTR-2A reconciliation against
their input credit taken in monthly return. It is seen that those letters individual-
ly addressed for each assessment year were acknowledged at the office of the
assessing officer on 20-3-2019. In support of such acknowledgment, the petitioner
has filed the copy of the letter delivery book showing that the letter dated 15-3-
2019 for each assessment year was received at the office of the Assessing Officer.
In fact, perusal of the assessment orders would also show that the said letter was
referred to in the reference column as the fifth reference. However, the Assessing
Officer, without giving time for the assessee, has proceeded to pass assessment
orders on 29-3-2019 by stating that the assessee failed to file their objection,
though sufficient time was given.
7. Admittedly in these cases, the assessee has sought for time to file
their objection through their letter dated 15-3-2019. Such communication was
also received by the Assessing Officer, as found in the impugned order itself. If
that be the case, the Assessing Officer is not justified in proceeding to pass the
assessment orders without informing the assessee as to whether their request for
time to submit their reply has been accepted or rejected. In both events, the As-
sessing Officer is bound to send a communication to the assessee and inform the
result of the request made by the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any such
communication from the Assessing Officer, there is a possibility of drawing a
reasonable presumption by the assessee exists, as if their request has been ac-
cepted. Therefore, the act of the Assessing Officer in not passing any order on the
request of the petitioner seeking for time and proceeding to pass the orders of
assessment straightway, in my considered view, amounts to violation of princi-
ples of natural justice. Admittedly, the orders of assessment were passed simply
by confirming the proposals in the absence of any objection from the petitioner.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to go back to the As-
sessing Officer to redo the assessment once again on merits and in accordance
with law after getting objection from the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned or-
ders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to redo
the assessment after receiving the reply from the petitioner from the date of re-
ceipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such reply, the Assessing Officer shall
pass order of assessment on merits and in accordance with law within a period of
four weeks thereafter. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
_______

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  103