2018 (11) TMI 62 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - the petitioner was not able to verify the transactions and make their reply on time - impugned order passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - principles of natural justice - Held that - It is not in dispute that the petitioner has received the prerevision notice, but they did not file their objections, as the same is bereft of relevant particulars. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in cases of mismatch, as per the Circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Circular No.10 of 2015 dated 01.04.2015, the second respondent ought to have enclosed the full particulars, invoice-wise, either in printed form or CD or email. Even if the petitioner does not respond for the show cause notice, it is mandatory on the part of the respondent to post the matter for personal hearing - As per the circular issued by the Head of the Department, pursuant to the recommendations issued by the Justice Ramanujam Committee, it is mandatory to give an opportunity of personal hearing, by specifying the dates of such personal hearing, whether it is asked or not by the petitioner. But, in the impugned order, there is no whisper as to the same. This Court is of the view that the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging revised assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15 without opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee, filed returns for the subject assessment year, which were accepted. However, a pre-revision notice citing discrepancies was issued without providing necessary particulars, hindering the petitioner's ability to respond. The impugned assessment order was passed without a personal hearing, prompting the writ petition.

The Additional Government Pleader argued that the petitioner did not respond to the pre-revision notice, justifying the assessment order. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the lack of essential details in the notice, citing a previous court decision. The court noted the absence of relevant particulars in the notice, crucial for objections, as per circular guidelines.

The court emphasized that even without a response to a show cause notice, the respondent must allow for a personal hearing, as per departmental circulars. Referring to a previous decision, the court reiterated the necessity of providing a hearing opportunity irrespective of objections to the notice.

Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The second respondent was directed to issue a new show cause notice with necessary particulars, followed by a detailed reply period from the petitioner and a scheduled hearing. The court mandated the second respondent to pass orders purely on merits within a specified timeframe, cautioning against delay tactics by the petitioner.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed, with the connected miscellaneous petition closed.