2021 (1) TMI 1149 - HC - Customs

Levy of Entry tax - no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Though in the impugned orders several notices are referred to, they were issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish their objections. It is beyond dispute that the personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, on this sole ground, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Lack of personal hearing before passing impugned orders in relation to Entry Tax assessment.

In a recent judgment by the Madras High Court, the petitioner raised concerns regarding the absence of a personal hearing before the passing of the impugned orders related to Entry Tax assessment. The primary contention put forth by the petitioner was that they were not given an opportunity for a personal hearing before the orders were issued. The court noted that while several notices were issued to the petitioner calling for objections, no personal hearing was provided, which was a crucial procedural requirement. Consequently, the court ruled that the impugned orders in the five petitions were to be quashed on the grounds of lack of personal hearing. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh orders to be passed in compliance with the law, emphasizing the necessity of providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The court explicitly stated that it did not delve into the merits of the case, focusing solely on the procedural irregularity of not granting a personal hearing.

The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings. By emphasizing the right to a personal hearing as a fundamental aspect of fair decision-making, the court underscored the significance of providing parties with an opportunity to present their case before any adverse orders are passed. The court's decision to quash the impugned orders and remit the matter back for fresh consideration with a proper personal hearing notice reflects a commitment to upholding procedural safeguards in administrative actions. Additionally, by clarifying that the judgment did not delve into the substantive merits of the case, the court maintained a narrow focus on the procedural deficiency of lack of personal hearing, demonstrating a meticulous approach to legal reasoning and decision-making. Overall, the judgment serves as a reminder of the essential procedural requirements that must be met to ensure a fair and just administrative process, particularly in matters concerning tax assessments and related issues.