Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2021 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (4) TMI 872 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues involved:
Challenging impugned orders of the second respondent, violation of principles of natural justice, levy of penalty under Section 22(5) of the TNVAT Act, failure to provide opportunity of personal hearing, threshold limit of turnover under Section 3(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act, alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a dealer in municipal contractor and an assessee, challenged the impugned orders of the second respondent regarding the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. The second respondent proposed to levy a penalty under Section 22(5) of the TNVAT Act due to discrepancies in purchase details, treated as sales suppression. The petitioner contended that the notice issued lacked enquiry and violated principles of natural justice by not providing a personal hearing as required by Section 22(4) of the Act. The petitioner emphasized the absence of wilful non-disclosure of turnover liable for assessment under Section 22(4) of the Act.

The petitioner argued that the turnover determined by the second respondent did not exceed the threshold limit as per Section 3(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act, which exempts from tax liability. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders and requested a redo of the assessment with a proper opportunity for a personal hearing. The Special Government Pleader for the respondents pointed out the petitioner's failure to file objections after receiving the notice and highlighted the availability of an alternative remedy through a statutory appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act within the prescribed time.

The Court considered both sides' submissions and documents. It noted the petitioner's claim of a violation of natural justice by not granting a personal hearing and the failure to specify dates for such a hearing as required by law. The Court referenced a prior decision emphasizing that the failure to submit objections does not justify denying the right to a personal hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to respond within two weeks, and the respondent was instructed to schedule a specific hearing date in advance. Cooperation in the enquiry and availing personal hearing were emphasized, with the directive for the respondent to pass reasoned orders within four weeks after the hearing.

In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were allowed on the condition of providing a proper opportunity for a personal hearing, with no costs incurred. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates