2018 (12) TMI 1802 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - main grievance of petitioner is that the Assessing Officer has concluding the assessment without affording an opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT - Perusal of the materials placed before this court would show that after issuance of the first notice dated 18.01.2016, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply on 14.06.2016, wherein and whereby, they sought for personal hearing. While issuing the second notice styled as final notice dated 17.10.2018, the Assessing Officer has dealt with the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 14.06.2016 and consequently, called upon the petitioner to appear for the personal hearing on 29.10.2018. Therefore, it is evident that the Assessing Officer has given the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner only after receipt of the objections raised from them and not before the same. There is no point in saying that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of personal hearing in pursuant to the second reply especially, when they have failed to utilise the opportunity given through the notice dated 17.102.018. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner, as if the personal hearing was not given to them, is not sustainable. Since this Court finds that the impugned orders of assessment were passed after following the principles of natural justice, the merits of the assessment touching upon the issues dealt with therein have to be canvassed only before the next fact finding authority. The writ petitions are disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal before the concerned appellate authority by complying with all other requirements within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for multiple assessment years, violation of principles of natural justice regarding personal hearing.

Analysis:
The writ petitions were filed challenging assessment orders for various assessment years. The main contention raised was the violation of principles of natural justice due to the Assessing Officer concluding the assessment without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner argued that they had requested a personal hearing in response to the notices issued, but the final order was passed without granting the opportunity for personal hearing.

The Government Advocate contended that the petitioner failed to utilize the opportunity of personal hearing provided on a specific date mentioned in the final notice. It was argued that the subsequent reply by the petitioner was a reproduction of an earlier reply and did not warrant another opportunity for personal hearing. The court heard arguments from both sides.

Upon reviewing the assessment orders, the court noted that the Assessing Officer had addressed various issues in detail and that the petitioner had the option to appeal to the Appellate Authority. The court refrained from delving into the merits of the assessment, emphasizing that such matters should be addressed by the Appellate Authority. However, the court examined the issue of personal hearing raised by the petitioner.

The court observed that the Assessing Officer had provided an opportunity for personal hearing after receiving objections from the petitioner and that the subsequent reply from the petitioner did not introduce new grounds necessitating another personal hearing. It was concluded that the Assessing Officer had followed the principles of natural justice by granting a personal hearing before finalizing the assessment orders. As a result, the court disposed of the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to file statutory appeals with the Appellate Authority within two weeks while bearing no costs.