2019 (6) TMI 1515 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - reasonable opportunity of being heard not being given to the writ petitioner - Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - There is no material before this Court to demonstrate that notice has been duly served on the writ petitioner. This Court is convinced that the impugned order has to be set aside on the ground of reasonable opportunity of being heard not being given to the writ petitioner i.e., personal hearing not being given to the writ petitioner - impugned order set aside - respondent is directed to issue notice afresh to the writ petitioner, give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner and pass orders afresh within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Opportunity of being heard not provided before passing the impugned order under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner, a dealer under Central Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged an order passed by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The impugned order was issued under Section 9(2) of CST Act and Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act. The main contention raised was the lack of opportunity for personal hearing before the order was passed.

The impugned order mentioned a notice dated 18.03.2019 sent to the writ petitioner, who allegedly did not respond. The counsel for the petitioner disputed the receipt of this notice and argued that the proposal mentioned in the order was dated 02.04.2019, making it impossible for the 18.03.2019 notice to be an opportunity for being heard. The court found merit in this argument, emphasizing the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per the proviso to Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act.

The proviso mandates that before taking action under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act, the dealer must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the impugned order should be set aside due to the absence of a personal hearing for the writ petitioner. Consequently, the court ordered the impugned order to be set aside solely on the ground of the lack of personal hearing and directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice, provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and pass orders within eight weeks.

In conclusion, the court's decision focused on the procedural aspect of not providing an opportunity for personal hearing to the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the case but emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for a fair decision-making process.