2019 (1) TMI 812 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - validity of revised assessment - TNVAT Act - main grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the Assessing Officer did not give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before concluding the assessment, even though this Court has specifically directed the Assessing Officer to give such opportunity - Held that - It is seen that the very same petitioner has already filed a writ petition before this Court in the case of STERLING AND WILSON PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CT) 2016 (2) TMI 1209 - MADRAS HIGH COURT challenging the order of assessment dated 08.07.2015 passed in respect of the very same assessment year 2013-2014. This Court, by order dated 18.02.2016, disposed the said writ petition, by setting aside the said order of assessment dated 08.07.2015 and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revised assessment order for assessment year 2013-2014 due to lack of personal hearing and reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under relevant sections of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the revised assessment order dated 03.09.2018 for the assessment year 2013-2014, primarily on the grounds that the Assessing Officer did not provide an opportunity for a personal hearing as directed by a previous court order. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer reversed the ITC under Sections 19(5)(a) and 19(5)(12) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, despite submitting valid certificates from SEZ units for a substantial value. The petitioner argued that a personal hearing would have allowed them to clarify the situation to the Assessing Officer in detail.

2. The High Court noted that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition challenging an earlier order of assessment for the same assessment year. In the previous judgment, dated 18.02.2016, the Court had set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter, specifically emphasizing the need for a personal hearing and consideration of the certificates provided by the petitioner. However, the subsequent impugned order, without granting a personal hearing, indicated non-compliance with the Court's directions from the previous judgment.

3. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order of assessment. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with a strict directive to provide the petitioner with a proper opportunity for a personal hearing. The Assessing Officer was instructed to complete this re-assessment within four weeks from the date of receiving the court order. Additionally, the petitioner was granted the liberty to submit any additional objections during this process. No costs were imposed on the petitioner, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed as a result of the judgment.