2019 (1) TMI 42 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - Levy of VAT - differential turnover between the balance sheet and form WW - development of software and sales turnover of branch office in the State of Kerala - grievance of the petitioner is that the order of assessment came to be passed for each assessment year without considering the documents filed along with the reply and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Held that - It is seen that while filing the objections to the notice of proposal, the petitioner has filed the documents, as is evident from the acknowledgment dated 14.05.2018 sent in the letter delivery book - When such being the factual position, this Court is not in a position to know as to how the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not filed any supportive documents - Whether the documents filed by the petitioner are supporting the case of the petitioner or not, is another question, which has to be considered and decided only by dealing with those documents. Personal hearing - Held that - It is for the Assessing Officer to indicate a specific date of personal hearing after getting the reply from the petitioner - In this case, it has not been done. This Court is inclined to remit the matter in respect of these two issues - the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, after considering the documents already filed by the petitioner and also by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Grievance against assessment orders for specific issues.
2. Failure to consider documents and provide personal hearing.
3. Interpretation of opportunity of personal hearing.
4. Remittal of the matter for re-assessment.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the assessment orders for the years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 concerning the levy of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax on the differential turnover related to service tax paid on software development and sales turnover in Kerala. The petitioner did not dispute other issues in the assessment.

2. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer passed the orders without considering the documents submitted with the reply and without granting a personal hearing, despite a specific request. The petitioner provided evidence of filing documents and requesting a personal hearing, challenging the Assessing Officer's conclusion of non-submission of documents.

3. The Additional Government Pleader contended that the notice of proposal provided an opportunity for a personal hearing within 15 days, but the court found this insufficient. The court emphasized that a personal hearing should occur after the reply submission to allow discussions on the proposal and reply justification, which did not happen in this case.

4. The court reviewed the evidence of document submission by the petitioner and the lack of an effective personal hearing opportunity. It concluded that the Assessing Officer's findings were incorrect regarding document submission and inadequate personal hearing provision. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment orders for the specific issues and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-assessment within six weeks, emphasizing consideration of submitted documents and provision of a proper personal hearing.