2018 (12) TMI 538 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - case of petitioner is that the Assessing Officer did not comply with the principles of natural justice while passing the orders of assessment - Held that - It is seen that the Assessing Officer issued the notice of proposal on 21.06.2018, wherein, he has stated that the petitioner can also avail an opportunity being heard in person on any working day within the period of 10 days. Therefore, it is evident that the exact date of personal hearing is not indicated by the Assessing Officer. In the absence of any communication from the Assessing Officer, the petitioner is justified in not making their appearance before the Assessing Officer, since the date of such hearing was not intimated to the petitioner in writing. The matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer for reconsidering the whole issue after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner exactly intimating the date of such hearing, more particularly, when the Assessing Officer has proposed to impose penalty also under Section 27(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice by Assessing Officer in passing assessment orders for assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.

Analysis:
The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer did not adhere to the principles of natural justice as they were not informed about the date of personal hearing despite requesting 15 days for the same. The Assessing Officer, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner failed to appear within the given 10-day notice period, leading to the assessment orders being passed. The court noted that the Assessing Officer did not specify the exact date of personal hearing in the notice of proposal dated 21.06.2018. Additionally, the petitioner's request for an adjournment and 15 days' time was not responded to by the Assessing Officer, leaving the petitioner uninformed and justified in not appearing. Citing a previous case, the court emphasized that decisions on such requests must be communicated promptly to the assessee to ensure compliance with natural justice principles.

In light of the above, the court found that the assessment orders were in violation of natural justice principles and ordered the matter to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer. The court directed the Assessing Officer to intimate the petitioner of the date for personal hearing within two weeks, following which the petitioner was required to submit objections and appear for the hearing. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer was instructed to pass the assessment orders within six weeks in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the importance of timely communication and adherence to procedural fairness in assessment proceedings to uphold principles of natural justice.

Therefore, both writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and specific terms and conditions were laid out for the reassessment process to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.