2007 (8) TMI 763 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - the order under challenge is liable to be set aside only on the ground of denial of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in terms of the prayer made by it in reply to the show cause notice

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment order under Section 20(4) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Denial of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
3. Interpretation of "reasonable opportunity of being heard" in the context of rules of natural justice.

Analysis:

1. The petition challenged the order revising the assessment for the year 2002-03 under Section 20(4) of the State Act, enhancing the tax liability of the petitioner. The assessment was revised by respondent No. 1 without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, leading to a dispute regarding the correctness of the assessment based on Rule 6(3)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.

2. The petitioner contended that the denial of personal hearing violated the rules of natural justice. Despite the petitioner's request for a personal hearing in response to the show cause notice, respondent No. 1 proceeded to revise the assessment without granting the requested opportunity. The Court found that the order was liable to be set aside solely due to the denial of the opportunity of personal hearing, as requested by the petitioner.

3. The Court referred to relevant provisions such as Section 20(1) and (4) of the Act and Rule 31(1) and (6) of the Rules, emphasizing that an order enhancing assessment cannot be passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to show cause against the proposed enhancement and a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court interpreted "reasonable opportunity of being heard" in light of the principles of natural justice, highlighting the importance of allowing the petitioner's representative to present their case effectively, especially in matters involving significant tax liabilities.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and directing respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner's representative with an opportunity of personal hearing. The judgment underscored the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice and granting a fair chance for the assessee to present their case effectively in assessment proceedings.