2018 (2) TMI 1480 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - TNVAT Act - fulcrum of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision of assessment was based on the details culled out from the Departmental website and that in spite of the petitioner s request to furnish the details namely mismatch details and check post details, the same were not furnished - Held that - the respondent understood the scope of the direction and called for information with regard to the stage of adjudication of the case by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. However, with regard to the direction contained in paragraph 12(i) of the order dated 08.8.2017, the respondent totally misunderstood the earlier directions issued in the said writ petitions and stated that the details have already been furnished even in the earlier notices dated 15.9.2014. On a comparison of the notices dated 15.9.2014 with the impugned notices, it is seen that it is a verbatim reproduction of the first notice. This Court did not expect the respondent to proceed in such a manner. The matters are remitted back to the respondent to scrupulously follow the directions contained in the earlier order dated 08.8.2017 - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notices for being arbitrary, unsustainable, and against natural justice under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged notices for being arbitrary and against natural justice. The revision of assessment was based on details from the Departmental website, without providing requested mismatch and check post details. The respondent lacked independent material except for information from the Director of Revenue Intelligence, which was a show cause notice pending adjudication. The Court found the Assessing Officer's approach incorrect and partly allowed previous writ petitions with specific directions.

Analysis:
The Court noted that the assessments were revised without providing requested details, violating principles of natural justice. Allegations of mis-declaration of value were solely based on information from the Director of Revenue Intelligence, pending adjudication. The Court emphasized the need for an independent inquiry and opportunity for personal hearing before concluding on alleged sales suppression or mis-declaration of value.

Analysis:
The respondent misunderstood the Court's directions in furnishing details and proceeded incorrectly by reproducing earlier notices verbatim. The Court expected the respondent to provide materials based on specific directions to avoid arbitrary actions. As the impugned notices lacked compliance with the Court's directions, they were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the respondent to follow the earlier order diligently.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, detailing the challenges faced by the petitioner, the shortcomings in the assessment process, and the Court's directions to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with natural justice principles.