(1.) All the writ petitions by and between the same parties, with the same relief prayed for, have been heard together. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5389/2011 is taken as the base case and the learned counsel for the parties have exclusively referred to the pleadings therein and the documents annexed. Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the impugned show-cause notice dated 20.06.2011; order of reassessment dated 18.07.2011 and the notice of demand issued pursuant thereto, has submitted that there being no reason for invoking the power under Section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 coupled with lack of bonafide exercise of power towards issuance of the impugned show-cause notice and the assessment order; same are liable to be interfered with. He submits that since there are no material to form a belief of any turn over as escaped in the assessment, the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. He also submitted that there being no reason for reopening of the completed assessment and that full disclosure having been made by the petitioner, company of all the materials facts necessary for completion of the assessment, the impugned orders are illegal, without jurisdiction and not tenable in law.
(2.) In paragraph-22 of the writ petition, it has been stated thus :
(3.) Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. R. Kakoti, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand referring to the counter affidavit filed questioning the very maintainability of the writ petitions, submits that there being alternative and equally efficacious remedy under Section 79 of the Act, the petitioners are first to avail the said remedy instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that the petitioner having already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority pursuant to the impugned show cause notice, it should pursue statutory remedy instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction. According to him, the impugned assessment order having not suffered from the vice of jurisdictional error and also not being violative of the principles of natural justice, there is no justification for the petitioners to bypass the statutory remedy available in law. He submits that the bonafide belief and opinion formed by the Assessing Officer that all part of the turn over representing import value of tobacco, perfume, menthe, saffron and lime escaped the assessment, the impugned orders cannot be called in question by means of the writ petitions.