Abstract

Efficient and fair tax administration relies heavily on a robust legal framework that guides the adjudication of tax cases. Tax assessment is the process by which the Lower Adjudication Authority (LAA) determine a tax liability identifying the escaped tax as well as tax related to illegitimate claims. A well-established set of judicial principles governing adjudication are extended to the assessment proceedings to ensure a fair and transparent process. The LAA is bound to uphold judicial principles while effectively resolving disputes. However, this has ultimately failed and the current litigation system is facing a growing crisis. The Courts are overburdened with an increasing number of tax disputes, despite the ample alternative mechanism attached to the System. This directly results from the failure of LAA to adhere to judicial principles during the assessment process, ultimately resulting in delayed justice or injustice. According to the National Judicial Data Grid1, the total number of tax cases pending before various High Courts as of March 2024 is 58,195. Thus, through a comprehensive analysis of jurisprudence, procedural frameworks, and empirical data, this research intends to explore the core principles governing adjudication in tax matters and the characterization of tax assessments which is the more critical and contested issue in tax litigation; Delve into the potential of reinvigorating tax adjudication at the officer level to streamline the system, reduce backlog, and uphold core principles like due process and fair hearing; and address the procedural reforms aiming at alleviating the burden on courts and restoring the primacy of adjudicative principles within the litigation landscape.

Keywords