2018 (10) TMI 1408 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - writ petition is filed by contending that the petitioner was not given opportunity of personal hearing as directed by this Court - Held that - Perusal of the order passed by the respondent, impugned in this writ petition would show that such opportunity was given to the petitioner not only on 15.02.2018 and also on 22.02.2018 - this Court is not convinced that the petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity of personal hearing. The entire issue was raised by the petitioner before this Court in this writ petition pertains to factual aspects of the matter, which has to be gone into and considered by the next fact finding authority viz., the Appellate Authority. It is for the petitioner to work out their remedy before the Appellate Authority by filing regular appeal, since those authorities are also the fact finding authority. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Opportunity of personal hearing not provided as directed by the Court
2. Fresh issue raised in the impugned order without prior notice of proposal
3. Dispute regarding invoices referred to in the impugned order

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an assessment order for the year 2015-16, leading to a writ petition. The court directed the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for a personal hearing. The respondent issued a notice for the petitioner to appear with original documents, resulting in an order imposing a tax of ?6,82,86,427. The petitioner alleged not being given a personal hearing as directed by the court.

2. The respondent argued that the petitioner had two opportunities for a personal hearing, on 15.02.2018 and 22.02.2018, as evidenced by the impugned order. The government pleader contended that the issue raised regarding certain invoices was already addressed in the original assessment order, and the petitioner cannot claim it as a new issue without a notice of proposal.

3. The court noted that this was the second round of litigation for the same assessment year. It found that the petitioner was indeed given the opportunity for a personal hearing on two occasions as stated in the impugned order. Regarding the contention on the invoices, the court observed that since the issue was raised in the original assessment order, it should have been specifically mentioned by the petitioner in the Section 84 application if they were aggrieved, especially if it was not raised with a prior notice of proposal.

4. The court emphasized that the issues raised by the petitioner were factual and should be considered by the Appellate Authority, which is the fact-finding body. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within four weeks. The court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its merits and pass orders in accordance with the law, without considering the period of limitation. The petitioner was instructed to comply with other statutory requirements while filing the appeal, and no costs were awarded.

5. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the opportunity to appeal before the Appellate Authority, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to pursue their remedy through the appropriate channels for a thorough review of the factual aspects of the case.