2017 (9) TMI 1763 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - CTO has not only ignored the objections, but, has also not even mentioned any reasons to over rule the objection raised by the petitioner - Held that - This Court has repeatedly held that when notices are issued calling for objections / reply, if any, within a stipulated time, on receipt of the said objection / reply from the assessee, a legal duty is cast upon the assessing officer to pass a detailed and speaking order, dealing with every objection raised by the assessee. The impugned orders are non-speaking orders and the same are set aside - the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent for fresh disposal - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders of Commercial Tax Officer for tax assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 under TNVAT Act on grounds of sales suppression, penalty imposition, and violation of natural justice principles.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in readymade garments and textiles, challenged assessment orders for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 due to discrepancies found during an inspection by Enforcement Wing officers. The officers alleged sales suppressions without proper verification and opportunity for the petitioner to explain discrepancies, leading to proposed tax and penalty levies. The respondent confirmed these proposals without considering the petitioner's detailed objections, violating principles of quasi-judicial conduct and natural justice.

The respondent argued that the petitioner's objections were not acceptable as the petitioner had allegedly admitted facts before the Enforcement Wing officers during verification. However, the Court found this argument insufficient, emphasizing the duty of assessing officers to address objections in detail as per legal precedents. The Court held that the impugned orders were non-speaking, lacking proper justification, and set them aside, remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh disposal within two months while emphasizing the need to consider the petitioner's objections and provide a fair hearing.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondent to re-examine the matter with due consideration to the petitioner's objections and principles of natural justice. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.