2015 (3) TMI 1201 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Inter-state sale - Failure to submit C forms - Held that - It is settled position that under Section 22(4) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), the dealer should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the case on hand, the authority has decided the matter without hearing the petitioner. In this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. - Matter remanded back to decide the matter afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the order.
2. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Issue 1: Failure to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the order

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to challenge the order passed by the first respondent on 30.01.2015. The petitioner requested the court to quash the order and direct the 1st respondent to allow a personal hearing and consider the submissions made by the petitioner. The court noted that under Section 22(4) of the Act, the dealer must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In this case, the authority decided the matter without hearing the petitioner, which rendered the impugned order liable to be set aside. The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair hearing before making decisions, and based on this ground, the impugned order was quashed.

Issue 2: Compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006

During the proceedings, Mr. Manoharan Sundaram, the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents, acknowledged that Section 22(4) of the Act is mandatory. He conceded that the 1st respondent should have followed the provisions of this section. In light of this, the court held that the impugned order dated 30.01.2015 was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the 1st respondent. The court directed the 1st respondent to adhere to the provisions of Section 22(4) and reconsider the matter after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed following these observations.

This judgment underscores the significance of affording a fair hearing to parties involved in legal proceedings, especially in matters concerning tax laws and administrative decisions. The court's decision to set aside the order due to the failure to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard highlights the fundamental principle of natural justice and procedural fairness in judicial review cases. The acknowledgment of the mandatory nature of statutory provisions further emphasizes the importance of adherence to legal requirements in administrative actions.