2018 (1) TMI 402 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - there was no communication from the second respondent, in respect of his request for adjournment made vide letter dated 10.08.2017 and resultantly, the petitioner was not in a position to have a reasonable opportunity to make his submissions in the matter in terms of Section 27(2) of TNVAT Act - Held that - When it was pointed out that the petitioner having not availed the opportunity provided by the second respondent, could not claim such equity without establishing how prejudice has been caused to him by the impugned orders - the impugned order is set aside in terms of aforesaid order dated 30.10.2014 in W.P(MD).Nos.28374 to 28377 of 2014 passed by this Court and proceedings are re-opened for fresh adjudication - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the second respondent.
2. Failure to communicate regarding the request for adjournment.
3. Compliance with Section 27(2) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.
4. Deposit of disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
5. Setting aside the impugned order and reopening proceedings for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the second respondent, alleging lack of communication regarding the request for adjournment. The petitioner argued that failure to communicate hindered his ability to make submissions as per Section 27(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision emphasizing the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to the dealer before passing any order.

2. The petitioner failed to submit the required documents despite multiple notices, leading to the second respondent passing final orders reaffirming the earlier decision. The petitioner contended that the lack of communication on his adjournment request deprived him of a fair opportunity to present his case, as mandated by the law. The petitioner emphasized the need for a meaningful opportunity for the Assessee, beyond mere procedural compliance.

3. To address the issue of prejudice caused by the impugned orders, the petitioner submitted a representation containing objections and deposited a portion of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner demonstrated his bona fides by depositing the required sum and providing additional information to support his case. This action aimed to establish equity and mitigate any potential prejudice resulting from the lack of communication.

4. In light of the procedural irregularities and the petitioner's efforts to rectify the situation, the court set aside the impugned order and reopened the proceedings for fresh adjudication. The court emphasized the importance of substantial justice between the parties and ensuring no miscarriage of justice. The petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent for a personal hearing, without seeking adjournment, to present his submissions. The second respondent was instructed to consider all objections raised by the petitioner and issue reasoned orders by a specified deadline.

5. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Writ Petition without costs and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition. The court's decision aimed to uphold fairness, adherence to legal procedures, and the principles of natural justice in the adjudication of tax matters, emphasizing the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the Assessee to present their case effectively.