2016 (1) TMI 424 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Challenge to the notice threatening to lock Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the petitioner under Rule 51 of the Punjab VAT Rules, 2005 - trading and milling of paddy - Held that - Perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.4 to take a decision on the reply dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure P-2) and Form VAT-29 and indemnity bond (Annexure P-3 Colly), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order before proceeding further against the petitioner, if required, in the matter.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for Mandamus to adjudicate submissions before executing notice threatening to lock Tax Identification Number (TIN).
2. Quashing of the notice dated 3.12.2015 threatening to lock TIN under Rule 51 of the Punjab VAT Rules, 2005.
3. Failure to take action on the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to adjudicate upon the submissions dated 11.12.2015 before executing the notice threatening to lock the Tax Identification Number (TIN) without further notice. The petitioner, engaged in trading and milling of paddy, had been filing returns regularly and paying taxes accordingly. Despite being entitled to a refund for certain assessment years, the petitioner received a notice threatening to lock the TIN without any further communication. The petitioner submitted written responses and documents, but no action was taken. The court directed respondent No.4 to decide on the submissions and documents within one month, following due process and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Issue 2:
The petitioner also prayed for the quashing of the notice dated 3.12.2015 threatening to lock the TIN under Rule 51 of the Punjab VAT Rules, 2005. The court, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, disposed of the petition by instructing respondent No.4 to make a decision on the submitted reply, Form VAT-29, and indemnity bond in accordance with the law. The respondent was directed to pass a speaking order within one month and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before taking further action if necessary.

Issue 3:
The counsel for the petitioner highlighted the failure to act on the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's efforts to provide the necessary information and documents, no action had been taken by the authorities. The court's directive to respondent No.4 to make a decision within a specified timeframe aimed to address this issue and ensure a timely resolution of the matter in accordance with the law.

This judgment reflects the court's emphasis on due process, fair consideration of submissions, and the importance of providing an opportunity to be heard before taking adverse actions against a party. The court's intervention aimed to ensure that the petitioner's rights were protected and that the authorities followed the legal procedures in addressing the issues raised in the petition.