9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 520 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxViolaion of principle of natural justice - Opportunity of hearing not provided - Assessee instead of preferring application for this reason filed petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 for rectification of the impugned order - Held that - When admittedly, the petitioner has chosen to file the application under Section 84 of the Act for rectification of the impugned order and if the impugned order is set aside on the ground raised by the petitioner, the petition filed under Section 84 would become infructuous. From the records, I find that a detailed order has been passed by the respondent and it is not required any interference by this Court. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner relying an order passed by this Court in 2015 (3) TMI 392 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , but the facts involved therein, are not applicable to the present case and this Court is not inclined to follow the above decision. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to order of respondent for lack of opportunity of personal hearing, jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition when Section 84 application is pending, interference by the court in detailed order passed by respondent, direction for disposal of representation and application. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the respondent's order dated 19.11.2014, citing lack of opportunity for personal hearing. The petitioner did not appeal to the appellate authority but filed a petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 for rectification, claiming an error on the face of the record. The court noted the pending petition under Section 84 and the representation made by the petitioner on 15.12.2014 but found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The respondent argued that with the pending Section 84 application and the expiry of time for condonation of delay, the court lacked jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition. The court heard both sides and emphasized that if the impugned order is set aside based on the petitioner's claims, the Section 84 petition would be rendered infructuous. The court refused to follow a previous decision cited by the petitioner as it was deemed inapplicable to the current case. Despite the above, the court acknowledged the pending Section 84 application and the petitioner's representation, directing the concerned authority to dispose of the representation dated 15.12.2014 along with the application dated 10.02.2015 within one month from the date of the order. This disposal was to be done after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The court disposed of the writ petition with no costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
|
