Writ petition challenging ex-parte assessment dismissed with costs for suppression of facts and baseless allegations of antedating.

The petitioner, M/S Sadbhav Engineering Ltd., challenged assessment orders dated 05.04.2021 passed under the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 and Entry Tax Act, 1976. The petitioner alleged that these orders were antedated, passed ex-parte without notice, and in violation of the principles of natural justice

Procedurally, the matter had previously been remanded to the Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 4) by the Commissioner on 20.10.2020 to reassess tax

The petitioner claimed to have appeared and filed account statements on 22.02.2021

further alleged that Respondent No. 4 issued a notice on 09.11.2021 for a hearing on 09.12.2021, despite having purportedly closed the case on 05.04.2021

the High Court’s examination of the original records revealed no evidence of the petitioner's appearance or the filing of the alleged statements

1. Whether the assessment orders dated 05.04.2021 were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby making the writ petition maintainable despite an available alternative remedy

2. Whether the Assessing Officer (Respondent No. 4) acted mala fide by passing antedated orders

Section 34 of the M.P. VAT Act, 2002 regarding the setting aside of ex-parte orders

Section 46 of the same Act regarding the statutory remedy of appeal

the duty of a litigant to keep track of proceedings once served with notice, as there is no legal requirement to issue fresh notices for every subsequent hearing date

The Court found the petitioner’s claims to be factually groundless after verifying the original case records. While the petitioner asserted that the council appeared on specific dates in February and March 2021, the record showed no signatures or account statements (Annexures P/8 and P/9) filed by the petitioner

The Court observed that since the petitioner admitted receiving notices following the remand order, the burden was on the petitioner to track the proceedings; thus, no violation of natural justice occurred

Regarding the allegation of "antedating," the Court determined that the notice dated 09.11.2021 (scheduling a hearing for 09.12.2021) was likely a clerical error made by a clerk after the case was already decided on 05.04.2021, rather than evidence of fraud by the Assessing Officer

The Court concluded that the petitioner secured an interim relief based on "incorrect statements" and baseless mala fide allegations against a judicial officer

The Court vacated the interim stay and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner for making false statements: Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in the account of the CCD and Rs. 25,000/- to be paid directly to Respondent No. 4 as compensation for harassment