2018 (9) TMI 548 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - contention of petitioner is that without considering the reply given by the petitioner and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, the respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 30.09.2010 - Held that - Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has given his objection, dated 24.06.2010, quoting various judgments. The respondent has also accepted the receipt of the objections of the petitioner, dated 24.06.2010, in the impugned order. However, the respondent has rejected the same stating that the decisions relied on by the petitioner is not relevant to the case on hand. The impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside and the same is remitted back to the file of the respondent - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging an order in TNGST, assessment year 2003-04, regarding taxation on printing coolie receipts without considering objections and providing a personal hearing.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a printer, engaged in printing contracts, challenged an order in TNGST concerning taxation on printing coolie receipts. The petitioner had two types of contracts: one liable for tax under TNGST Act and the other exempted. During the assessment year 2003-04, the petitioner opted for tax payment at a compounding rate. The reported taxable turnover included works contract turnover, and the petitioner paid tax accordingly. However, the respondent later proposed revising the assessment, including printing coolie receipts for taxation. The petitioner objected, citing clarifications from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Despite objections, the respondent issued an impugned order without considering the petitioner's reply or providing a personal hearing.

The main contention was that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's objections and without a personal hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued for setting aside the order on these grounds. In response, the Additional Government Pleader contended that the objections were considered and rejected as the decisions relied upon by the petitioner were deemed irrelevant. The court carefully reviewed the records and noted that the objections were indeed submitted by the petitioner, quoting various judgments. However, the respondent rejected these objections, stating the decisions cited were not relevant.

Referring to a similar case, the court highlighted a previous judgment where objections were rejected without reasons, leading to the order being set aside for fresh consideration. Drawing parallels, the court found that the respondent in this case also rejected objections without due consideration. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for a reevaluation. The respondent was directed to consider the objections, provide a personal hearing, and pass reasoned orders within eight weeks from the date of the court's order. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.