2016 (9) TMI 313 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of orders of assessment TNVAT Act, 2006 production of relevant documents - grant of opportunity of personal hearing Held that - several issues could be sorted out if personal hearing is granted in which the dealer can be called upon to clarify all the doubts. This will ensure that the assessments are completed in a proper manner without any loopholes and the revenue to be collected by the Government is collected in full. As, an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to the petitioner and the documents produced by the petitioner was stated to have not been produced, the assessment should be redone writ petition allowed decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under TNVAT Act for years 2007-08 to 2013-14. Denial of opportunity for personal hearing and non-consideration of documents by Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

The petitioner contested the assessment orders dated 15.06.2016 under the TNVAT Act for the years 2007-08 to 2013-14. Despite submitting various documents with objections, the Assessing Officer claimed they were not filed. The petitioner also highlighted the lack of a granted personal hearing opportunity, leading the court to direct clarification from the Assessing Officer.

Upon receiving a response from the Assessing Officer, it was revealed that the petitioner did not seek personal hearing for the years in question, except for 2014-15. However, the court noted that the petitioner did provide the required documents, and even for the year 2012-13, a specific request for personal hearing was made. The court emphasized that personal hearings are crucial in complex assessment proceedings to clarify doubts and ensure accurate revenue collection.

The court observed that the transactions for all assessment years were similar, and since separate assessment orders were issued simultaneously, the Assessing Officer should have granted a personal hearing. Emphasizing the importance of personal hearings in assessment procedures, the court highlighted the need for dialogue and clarification to prevent any gaps in revenue collection.

Considering the denial of a personal hearing and the discrepancy regarding document submission, the court decided to set aside the impugned orders and instructed the respondent to redo the assessments for all years after granting a personal hearing and reviewing all documents provided by the petitioner. The petitioner was also permitted to submit any additional relevant documents during the personal hearing. As a result, the writ petitions were allowed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.