2018 (12) TMI 1357 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - validity of revised assessment order - TNVAT Act - it is alleged that impugned orders passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing and without independent application of mind - Held that - Admittedly, notices were issued by the respondent, for which, objections were filed by the petitioner. The respondent, thereafter, ought to have fixed a date for personal hearing and communicated the same to the petitioner. A reading of the impugned orders reveal that no such exercise was done by the respondent. A Division Bench of this Court in G.V. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) AVARAYAMPALAYAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, COIMBATORE 2018 (3) TMI 1617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that the opportunity of personal hearing cannot be denied, even if the objections not filed - In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has submitted his objections. But, the respondent, after receipt of the said objections, has passed the impugned orders, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing. The impugned orders, dated 23.03.2018, passed by the respondent are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging revised assessment orders for multiple assessment years without opportunity of personal hearing and independent application of mind.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in jewels and ornaments, challenged revised assessment orders for various assessment years due to discrepancies pointed out by the respondent after inspections and scrutiny of returns. The petitioner submitted objections, but the respondent passed the impugned orders without providing a personal hearing or independent consideration. The High Court noted that the circular by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes mandates a personal hearing, even if not requested, which was not followed by the respondent in this case.

A Division Bench decision highlighted that the opportunity of personal hearing cannot be denied, even if objections were not filed. In this case, although the petitioner submitted objections, the respondent failed to provide a personal hearing before passing the impugned orders. Therefore, the Court held that the orders must be set aside on this ground alone.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the respondent did not apply an independent mind to the objections and merely confirmed the proposal without giving reasons for rejection. Citing a previous judgment, the Court emphasized the necessity for the assessing officer to consider information independently and provide reasoned orders. As the respondent failed to do so in this case, the impugned orders were deemed unsustainable and set aside.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to conduct a personal hearing, pass reasoned orders, and comply with the law within six weeks. The Court clarified that non-cooperation from the petitioner could lead to appropriate action by the respondent. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.