2014 (9) TMI 905 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Discrepancy in the PIN Number of the supplier - Bonafide mistke or not - Held that - It appears that the authority has clarified regarding the mismatch of TIN Number. However, this clarification dated 03.06.2014 has been issued much after the impugned order of assessment. Since the assessment appears to have been passed on those mismatched entries, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing to place before the first respondent the clarification dated 03.06.2014 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dindigul. - Accordingly, without setting aside the impugned proceedings, the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Assessment based on discrepancy in supplier's PIN Number, denial of personal hearing, issuance of clarification post-assessment, remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, procured goods from the second respondent. The impugned assessment orders were passed due to a discrepancy in the PIN Number of the supplier. The petitioner raised various grounds challenging the assessment, but the court deemed them unsuitable for adjudication in a writ petition.

2. The petitioner had stated in response to a show-cause notice that they possessed original bills to rectify the mismatched entries. Despite this, no personal hearing was granted as the petitioner did not request one. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a clarification regarding the TIN Number mismatch, but this was done after the assessment order was passed.

3. The court observed that since the assessment was based on the mismatched entries, the petitioner should have the opportunity for a personal hearing to present the clarification issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Therefore, the court remanded the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.

4. The first respondent was directed to notify the petitioner for a personal hearing and provide an opportunity to submit all relevant documents to prove the TIN Number discrepancy was a genuine mistake. After considering the petitioner's submissions, the first respondent was instructed to pass orders in accordance with the law.

5. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without any costs being imposed. The judgment highlights the importance of providing a fair opportunity for a personal hearing and considering all relevant evidence before making an assessment decision under the tax laws.