2015 (7) TMI 1073 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of impugned order - Violation of principles of natural justice - No opportunity of personal hearing granted - Held that - this Court finds it difficult to agree with the said contention for the reason that the respondent, while issuing the notice has made it clear that the petitioner should file his reply in writing with all necessary documents within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and they are also given an opportunity of personal hearing to put forth their objections, if any. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to ask for personal hearing, after filing the objections. But, in the present case, there is no such indication anywhere, either in the petitioner s reply or in any other subsequent letter addressed to the assessing officer, that the petitioner requested for personal hearing. Therefore, this Court, at this belated stage, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as the petitioner has got a right of appeal before the appellate authority. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Lack of personal hearing before passing the impugned order by the Commercial Tax Officer.
2. Petitioner's contention of unfairness in the assessment process.
3. Filing of rectification application under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
4. Direction to file an appeal before the appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was granted before the impugned order was passed, leading to unjustified and unfair conclusions by the respondent. However, the court noted that the notice clearly stated that the petitioner should file a written reply with necessary documents within 15 days and would be given an opportunity for a personal hearing to present objections. The court highlighted that there was no indication that the petitioner requested a personal hearing, although a rectification application was later filed citing the lack of a personal hearing. The court emphasized that the petitioner still had the right to appeal before the appellate authority, thus declining to interfere with the impugned order at that stage.

2. The court found it crucial to address the petitioner's claim of unfairness in the assessment process. Despite the petitioner's argument that the lack of a personal hearing rendered the conclusions unjustified, the court emphasized the importance of following the procedures outlined in the notice. The court highlighted that the petitioner had the opportunity to request a personal hearing after filing objections but failed to do so. The court's decision not to interfere with the impugned order was based on the petitioner's right to appeal, reinforcing the significance of following due process in assessment proceedings.

3. The petitioner's decision to file a rectification application under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, was noted by the court. The application highlighted the absence of a personal hearing before the impugned order was passed, indicating a procedural oversight in the assessment process. The court acknowledged the rectification application but maintained that the petitioner's right to appeal before the appellate authority remained unaffected. By directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal within a specified timeframe, the court underscored the importance of utilizing the available legal remedies in challenging assessment decisions.

4. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had the option to appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from receiving a copy of the order. The court's decision to uphold the impugned order underscored the significance of following procedural requirements and utilizing the statutory appeal mechanism provided under the law. The dismissal of the writ petition without costs signified the court's stance on the petitioner's recourse to the appellate process for addressing grievances related to the assessment proceedings.