2017 (3) TMI 626 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Natural justice - petitioner had no intimation as to whether or not his request for adjournment was accepted by the respondent. In other words according to the petitioner the passing of the impugned orders came as a surprise no opportunity of being heard was given to them - Held that - The petitioner is right in contending that he had no clue as to whether or not his request for adjournment had been considered. Therefore quite naturally the petitioner would have been taken by surprise when the impugned orders were passed. Therefore notwithstanding the fact that the orders were passed after a period of one month had expired which is the period of accommodation sought for by the petitioner the grievance of the petitioner did not get addressed which is that he had no opportunity to present his case - impugned order set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenges to assessment orders for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, breach of natural justice due to lack of opportunity to represent case.

Analysis:
The writ petitions challenge two orders from 19.12.2016 regarding Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10, demanding tax and penalties from the petitioner. The petitioner requested an adjournment in response to revision notices proposing disallowance of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for both AYs. The petitioner's main grievance is that the impugned orders were passed without addressing the adjournment request, causing surprise. The petitioner argues that principles of natural justice were breached as he was not informed about the status of his adjournment request.

The respondent argues that since the period for adjournment had expired when the orders were passed, the petitioner's grievance is invalid. However, the Court notes that the Circular dated 20.04.2001 requires the assessing officer to consider and decide on adjournment requests before proceeding. The purpose is to ensure natural justice is upheld and decisions are made fairly. In this case, the petitioner only sought one month's adjournment, which was not unreasonable. The Court finds that the assessing officer should have considered the adjournment request before passing the orders.

The Court agrees with the petitioner that he was unaware of the status of his adjournment request, leading to surprise when the orders were issued. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside, and the assessing officer is directed to redo the assessment after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity to present his case. The petitioner must appear before the assessing officer with relevant documents on the specified date. The assessing officer is instructed to provide materials and information supporting the proposed actions against the petitioner. The writ petitions are disposed of with no costs awarded.