2015 (12) TMI 372 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 84 - Held that - It is apparent that the second respondent, without permitting the petitioner to file objection and without affording due opportunity to the petitioner has passed the orders dated 20.02.2015. Further, realizing that a mistake has been crept in, the second respondent has passed the impugned orders (rectification), under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, dated 19.06.2015. However, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, the said orders have been passed, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Neither the order dated 20.02.2015 nor the order dated 19.06.2015 complied the provisions of the TN VAT Act. On this score alone, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders of the second respondent in TIN/33570800222/2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 dated 20.02.2015 and consequential orders dated 19.06.2015.

Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act and CST Act engaged in the manufacture of printing and writing papers, challenged the orders of the second respondent. The petitioner contended that despite filing objections with necessary documents, the second respondent passed orders on 06.01.2015 without considering the objections. The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their case, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the assessment orders and directed the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer for a personal hearing to file objections.

2. Failure to Follow Due Process:
The High Court noted that the second respondent, without allowing the petitioner to file objections or providing a proper opportunity, passed orders on 20.02.2015. Subsequently, revised orders were issued on 19.06.2015 under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act to rectify an error. However, these rectification orders were also passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, as required by law. The Court emphasized that both the original and rectified orders failed to comply with the provisions of the TN VAT Act, highlighting a clear violation of due process.

3. Remittance for Fresh Consideration:
In light of the procedural irregularities and the failure to adhere to principles of natural justice, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed the second respondent to communicate a correct date and time for the petitioner's appearance within two weeks. The petitioner was instructed to appear with any additional replies, if necessary. The second respondent was mandated to conduct a thorough inquiry, consider all documents and objections, and issue final orders within four weeks from the petitioner's appearance, ensuring compliance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on upholding procedural fairness, emphasizing the importance of providing parties with a genuine opportunity to present their case and be heard. The Court's decision to set aside the orders and order a fresh consideration underscored the significance of following due process and principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.