2018 (2) TMI 1476 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - challenge to order on the ground that the respondent has not strictly adhered to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition being W.P.No.20189 of 2003 - principles of natural justice - Held that - the 1st respondent was required to call for the necessary records and details from the 2nd respondent and then conduct an enquiry and pass fresh orders on merits. However, the 1st respondent has partially complied with the directions and appears to have secured some information from the 2nd respondent, the Assessing Officer of the 3rd respondent. However, without providing further opportunity to the petitioner held that the materials collected by him are sufficient to conclude the case against the petitioner. This procedure adopted by the 1st respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner had no opportunity to rebut the materials which were collected by the 1st respondent from the 2nd respondent and relied upon to nonsuit the petitioner. The 1st respondent is directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1999-2000 based on non-adherence to court directions in a previous writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order for the year 1999-2000 under the Central Sales Tax Act, alleging non-adherence to court directions in a previous writ petition. The earlier writ petition sought a writ of certiorari to quash an assessment order and direct the Assessing Officer to grant exemption without insisting on Form H Declaration. The court had directed an inquiry to verify the genuineness of the claim made in Form H. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 54-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, providing relevant details, which were not considered by the authorities. The impugned order was passed solely on the ground of Form H non-filing, without considering other documents as directed by the court previously.

The High Court noted that the authorities had not considered the application filed under Section 54-A and hastily passed the impugned order based on Form H non-filing. The court reiterated the previous direction for an inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the claim based on all documents furnished by the dealer. The matter was remanded to the first respondent to consider the application, conduct an inquiry, and pass orders afresh within two weeks, providing an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish additional details related to export.

The 1st respondent partially complied with the directions by securing some information from the 2nd respondent but failed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to rebut the collected materials before concluding the case against the petitioner. This was deemed a violation of natural justice principles, necessitating the setting aside of the order and remanding for fresh consideration. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the 1st respondent to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner, furnish details of information collected, allow further objections, and redo the assessment in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in this judgment.