2018 (9) TMI 1188 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of the principles of natural justice - Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that - The petitioner filed their objections dated 17.10.2017, the Assessing Officer addressed to the third respondent on 10.11.2017 presumably requesting him to furnish certain details regarding stock variation pertaining to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not informed about the said communication dated 10.11.2017 and in response to the same, the third respondent, by letter dated 06.12.2017, furnished 42 pages of stock details, which were stated to be furnished by the petitioner at the time of inspection. If the first respondent proposes to rely upon any documents, which he received from the third respondent and even if the documents were obtained by the officials of the Enforcement Wing from the petitioner during inspection, the first respondent, being the Assessing Officer, has a duty to furnish copies of the same to the petitioner and afford an opportunity to put forth their objections. The manner, in which, the assessment has been completed, is incorrect and will not stand to scrutiny of law. This is sufficient to set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the first respondent for a fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for assessment year 2016-17.

The judgment delivered by Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam, J., of the Madras High Court addressed the challenge to an impugned order dated 13.12.2017 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner, a registered dealer, contended that the order violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not informed about communication between the Assessing Officer and a third respondent regarding stock details, which were crucial for assessment. Despite the petitioner filing objections and the Assessing Officer receiving additional details from the third respondent, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to respond. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer has a duty to provide copies of any documents relied upon and allow the petitioner to present objections. The judgment concluded that the assessment was completed incorrectly and did not comply with the law, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the matter for a fresh consideration. The first respondent was directed to provide copies of documents obtained, grant time for further objections, allow a personal hearing, and redo the assessment in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment.