2015 (9) TMI 578 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Failure to issue Show-Cause notice Before passing impugned orders, respondent failed to issued show-cause notice to petitioner as per circular, therefore, impugned orders are not sustainable in law Held that - admittedly, impugned proceedings have been issued without issuing show-cause notice to petitioner As per circular issuance of notice is desirable since there may be disputes on actual amount of arrears, number of days of delay and calculation of penalty From reading of said circular, it is clear that before imposing penalty, notice has to be issued to assesse and said notice should also contain details of amount of arrears, due date of payment, date of payment, number of days delay and penalty payable Without issuing such notice as contemplated under circular, respondent has straightaway passed impugned proceedings, which is not correct Therefore, impugned orders passed in violation of said circular, cannot be sustained Petitioner directed to submit their reply by treating impugned proceedings as show-cause notices Decided in favour of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned proceedings dated January 7, 2014 and March 10, 2014 for lack of show-cause notice as per circular dated April 20, 2001.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned proceedings for lack of a show-cause notice as required by a circular dated April 20, 2001. The petitioner argued that the respondent's failure to issue a notice rendered the impugned orders legally unsustainable. On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader contended that even though a notice was not issued, the necessary details were included in the impugned proceedings, making them valid. The court noted that the circular mandated the issuance of a notice before imposing a penalty, containing specific details such as the amount of arrears, due date for payment, date of payment, number of days of delay, and the penalty payable. The court emphasized that the respondent's failure to adhere to this requirement rendered the impugned proceedings incorrect.

The court referred to a previous judgment, Millennium Motors v. Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore, where it was held that issuing a notice and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case before imposing a penalty was crucial. The court emphasized that by not following the circular and providing the petitioner with a chance to respond, the impugned orders could not be upheld. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner regarding the penalty amount within two weeks, allowing the petitioner to submit an explanation. The respondent was instructed to consider the explanation and proceed in accordance with the law, ensuring a personal hearing for the petitioner.

In light of the above, the court quashed the impugned orders due to the violation of the circular's requirements. The petitioner was directed to treat the impugned proceedings as show-cause notices and submit their reply within three weeks. The respondent was then required to consider the reply and pass orders after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The writ petitions were allowed accordingly, with no costs imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.