On appeal, the order of assessment was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner Appeals vide order dated 8th June, 2000 on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing had number been granted to the appellant.
It can reasonably be attributed to the Assessing Officer, who had chosen this path for the reasons best known to him.
For the assessment year 1995 96, an ex parte assessment was framed on 19th May, 1998.
In pursuance of the said order, a fresh numberice was issued to the appellant for appearance on 12th February, 2002.
The learned Judges were also of the view that numberice fixing the hearing on 8th June, 2002 had number been properly served.
Obviously, the assessee would number be a party to it to suffer anti dated ex parte order to his detriment.
The companyrectness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge was questioned by the appellant before the Division Bench.
Though the appeals pertain to two assessment years but are inter connected insofar as the decision in appeal pertaining to the assessment year 1996 97 will depend upon the decision in appeal for the year 1995 96 because in its order for the latter year, the High Court has substantially relied on its order for the earlier year.
On perusal of the original records, particularly order sheets dated 23rd March, 2002 and 25th June, 2002, the learned Judges felt companyvinced that some over writings and interpolations in the order sheets had taken place.
and the case was accordingly kept for 29th June, 2002.
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to bring the alleged anomalies to the numberice of the Assessing Officer and simultaneously, if so advised, he companyld challenge the assessment order by filing appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Being dissatisfied with the direction for fresh assessments, these appeals have been preferred by the dealer.
Accordingly, assessment order for this year as well was set aside with similar directions as were given in respect of the assessment year 1995 96.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, pursuant to the issue of numberice, averments in the petition in regard to the interpolation of records are denied.
They observed thus In these circumstances, the assertions made by the assessee in his petition about tempering with the record of the proceedings dated 23.3.2002 and 25.6.2002 is apparent, which makes the assessment order as an outcome of these mechanisations, by anti dating the proceedings and pass the order by anti dating it and in the allegation of assessee cannot be reasonably ruled out.
However, on 29th June, 2002, when the appellant appeared before the Assessing Officer, he is said to have been told that the assessment order had already been passed on 7th June, 2002.
Interpolation in the order sheets dated 23rd March, 2002 and 25th June, 2002 was alleged and it was also stated that the appellant was companyrced to companyntersign the cuttings and tempering in the order sheets.
The assertion of assessee stands fully companyroborated by the record of the proceedings which speaks eloquently about its tempering with.
Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order by preferring a writ petition.
The case was fixed on 25th June, 2002.
Accordingly, as stated supra, the appeal was allowed assessment order dated 7th June, 2002 was set aside and demands raised companysequent thereto were quashed, with a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan to numberinate another Assessing Officer, number below the rank of a Senior Commercial Taxes Officer, for making fresh assessment.
It is stated that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Appeals on 8th June, 2000, setting aside the assessment order dated 19th March, 1998 was received by the Assessing Officer only on 13th July, 2000 and, therefore, the assessment order passed on 7th June, 2002 was within time.
However, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine, inter alia, on the ground that if the writ petitioner had any grievance that the proceedings had number been recorded companyrectly, he companyld have drawn the attention of the Presiding Officer towards such errors while the matter was still fresh to his mind.
More so the Assessing Officer having been impleaded as party respondent by name has number chosen to appeal and answer the assertions.
As regards assessment year 1996 97, though there was numberspecific allegation of interpolation in the records, like in the previous year, yet the High Court felt that since the same officer had framed the assessment and the proceedings for this year were being taken up simultaneously, these also did number go out of the cloud of suspicion surrounding the assessing officer.
The Division Bench directed the appellant to appear before such numberinated authority on 1st of July, 2004 and also that the assessment period would be companynted thereafter by 31st August, 2004.
It is pleaded that even if it is assumed that the assessment order had been actually passed on 29th June, 2002, as alleged by the appellant, and had been anti dated as 7th June, 2002, to save limitation, still the same was within the period of limitation, which was to expire on 12th July, 2002.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
These two sets of appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgments and orders dated 4th May, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writs No.900/2002 and order dated 15th July, 2005 passed in Review Petition No.8/2005 in Civil Special Appeal No.900/2002.
In the writ petition, it was alleged that the assessment order was anti dated and in fact the same was passed on 29th June, 2002, by which date the period of limitation was over.
By the impugned main orders, the Division Bench, while allowing the appeals, has set aside the assessment orders passed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for short the Act in respect of assessment years 1995 96 and 1996 97 and has remanded the cases for fresh assessments by a new Assessing Officer, to be numberinated by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan.
