2022 (10) TMI 1212 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - writ petitioner has not availed the opportunity given by 1st respondent and the impugned revision is well within the purview of the relevant laws - HELD THAT - Having regard to the contention of the petitioner that he has additional material to be submitted and also having regard to the legal and factual objections against the suo moto revision undertaken by 1st respondent raised in this writ petition, in the interests of justice, it is deemed apposite that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner for making submissions as against the impugned revision sought to be made by 1st respondent. The matter is remitted back to 1st respondent with a direction to issue a notice to the petitioner fixing the date for hearing well in advance, in which case, the petitioner shall appear with his documents, if any.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the 1st respondent's suo motu revision of the assessment was legally justified.
2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order without providing an opportunity for submission.
3. Whether the writ petition merits consideration.

Analysis:
1. The main argument against the proceedings of the 1st respondent was twofold. Firstly, it was contended that the 1st respondent, who had authorized the 2nd respondent to make the assessment for a specific period, should not have undertaken a suo motu revision, which was legally not within his entitlement. Secondly, it was argued that the petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity to make submissions as the impugned order was passed without allowing sufficient time for the petitioner to present additional material and arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the principles of natural justice were compromised in this process, urging the court to set aside the impugned order and direct a fresh hearing by the 1st respondent.

2. The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes opposed the writ petition, asserting that the petitioner had not utilized the opportunity provided by the 1st respondent and that the revision in question was in compliance with relevant laws. However, upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, the court acknowledged the petitioner's claim that additional material was available for submission and observed legal and factual objections to the suo motu revision by the 1st respondent. In the interest of justice, the court deemed it appropriate to grant the petitioner an opportunity to present submissions against the impugned revision.

3. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned revision proceedings and remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent with a directive to issue a notice to the petitioner well in advance, fixing a date for a hearing. The court instructed the petitioner to appear with any relevant documents, following which the 1st respondent was tasked with hearing both parties and issuing an appropriate order based on merits and in accordance with the governing laws and rules promptly. No costs were awarded in this matter, and any pending interlocutory applications were to be closed as a result of this judgment.