2015 (5) TMI 250 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Challenge to the orders of assessment - Violation of principle of natural justice - Non consideration of assessee's objections - Held that - Petitioner has given their objection by letter dated 03.09.2013, wherein, apart from raising factual objections on merits of the assessment, the petitioner requested for furnishing a photocopy of VST-3A proposal of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Central, Chennai, dated 10.07.2013 and this communication is said to have been served on the respondent by handing over in the office of the respondent by way of delivery book on 04.09.2013. Though the petitioner, in para 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, has specifically stated that the communication was received in the office of the respondent on 04.09.2013, there is no specific denial of the said averment in the counter affidavit, more particularly, in para 9 of the counter affidavit. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made by the petitioner since they had objected the proposal of revision of assessment. However, other issues are not gone into. Hence, it is held that the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice and the same calls for interference of this Court only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, since the objection filed on 03.09.2013 was not considered by the respondent. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment orders for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 based on violation of principles of natural justice and factual contentions.

Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged assessment orders dated 31.10.2013 for the mentioned assessment years. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders violated principles of natural justice as their objection dated 03.09.2013 was received by the respondent on 21.10.2013, yet the orders were passed on 31.10.2013 without considering the objection. Furthermore, discrepancies were highlighted regarding the location of the petitioner's business premises, emphasizing that the respondent's claims did not align with the petitioner's registered office address change notification. The petitioner also argued that the notice for assessment was based on a proposal without prior notice or proper inquiry, indicating a lack of procedural fairness.

2. Counter Affidavit and Response:
The respondent's counter affidavit did not address the petitioner's contention regarding the notification of the change in business premises. Instead, it focused on the merits of the assessment, stating that the petitioner failed to file objections despite being given the opportunity. The respondent maintained the validity of the assessment orders, suggesting that the petitioner could appeal to the Appellate Authority if dissatisfied. However, the petitioner's objection letter dated 03.09.2013, requesting specific documentation, was acknowledged to have been delivered to the respondent's office on 04.09.2013, with no explicit denial in the respondent's affidavit. Consequently, the court inclined to accept the petitioner's submission that their objection was not duly considered, leading to a violation of natural justice.

3. Court Decision and Remedy:
The court found in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned assessment orders and remitting the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, review their objections and documents, and issue new orders based on merits and legal compliance. The court mandated completion of this process within three months from the date of the court order, emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.