2015 (6) TMI 1255 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of the principles of natural justice - rectification application not cosidered - grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner had already filed application seeking certain rectification giving three clear reasons and found no response - without issuing any notice on the pending application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 seeking rectification, ex-parte order passed - HELD THAT - The learned Additional Government Pleader (T) is unable to support the impugned order. The reason is that when the petitioner's application filed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 seeking certain rectification on three reasons has not been considered, he has come to this Court by filing writ petition no.10546/2011 and this Court also directed the respondent to pass appropriate order on the pending application dated 31.03.2011, while so, the first respondent without issuing any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity has passed the impugned exparte order. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to pass a speaking order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging an order passed against provisions of law and principles of natural justice - Failure to consider revised returns - Excess reporting of taxable turnover - Inclusion of VAT amount in sale bills - Omitted credit notes - Sales return figures - Failure to respond to representation - Direction for rectification - Ex parte order without notice - Remand for speaking order after personal hearing.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, alleging it violated the law and principles of natural justice. The petitioner, registered under VAT and CST Acts, filed a self-assessment order in 2011, failing to consider revised returns from 2008 and 2009, resulting in excess tax payment. The excess reporting errors included VAT amount in sale bills separately, omitted credit notes, and unaccounted sales return figures.

The petitioner approached the Court in 2011, directing the respondent to rectify the assessment order and pass a fresh one. Despite this, the respondent did not respond to the representation, leading to the current petition. The Court found the respondent's actions prejudicial, as no notice was issued before the ex parte order was passed.

In the hearing, the Additional Government Pleader could not support the impugned order, acknowledging the failure to consider the petitioner's rectification application. The Court set aside the order, remanding the matter for a speaking order after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.