2015 (6) TMI 339 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Determination of total and taxable turnover under revision of assessment - Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act - Held that - When the petitioner had appeared before the respondent and also filed his objection, this Court is unable to find any justification to hold against the petitioner that he had failed to appear and submit his explanation. Therefore, this Court, prima facie being satisfied that the orders impugned are reflecting non-application of mind of the respondent, has no other option except to set aside the same. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed in TIN Nos.33714781413/2011-12 and 33714781413/2012-13 dated 05.12.2014 and TIN No.33714781413/2013-14 dated 11.10.2014 are set aside with a direction to the respondent to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and consider his case along with the objection filed on 01.12.2014 and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders passed by Commercial Tax Officer under TNVAT Act for years 2011-2014.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in fertilizers and pesticides under the TNVAT Act, reported taxable turnovers for the years 2011-2014. The assessment was deemed completed as per Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act due to the absence of a notice before 31.10.2014. However, the respondent issued notices in September and October 2014 alleging unreported purchase turnovers from specific entities and proposed penalties under Section 22(5) of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner appeared before the respondent on 30.10.2014 and 01.12.2014, submitting detailed objections and requesting a personal hearing. Despite this, the impugned orders wrongly stated that the petitioner failed to appear or file objections. The petitioner provided proof of appearance and objection submissions. The Additional Government Pleader for the respondent was unable to counter the petitioner's specific contention that the orders passed lacked proper consideration even after the petitioner's appearance and objection submissions.

The court found no justification to hold against the petitioner for failure to appear or submit explanations since the petitioner did appear and submit objections. The court, prima facie satisfied that the impugned orders reflected a lack of proper consideration by the respondent, set aside the orders. The court directed the respondent to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing, consider the objections filed on 01.12.2014, and pass final orders based on merits and in accordance with the law. Consequently, the impugned orders for the years 2011-2014 were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed with no costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.