2019 (3) TMI 506 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - Validity of assessment order - It is the case of the petitioner that no notice was received by the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings and no personal hearing was given to the petitioner to enable him to raise objections to the demand - Held that - The petitioner ought to have been given personal hearing, whether he had opted for the same or not. This Court is of the considered view that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice by not affording sufficient opportunity including the right of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned demand - the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including the right of personal hearing - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment order based on lack of personal hearing and violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a wholesale and retail dealer, challenged an assessment order dated 19.05.2015, claiming lack of basis for the demand received from the second respondent. The petitioner argued that the demand was made without notice or personal hearing, leading to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner contended that the circular issued by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes mandated personal hearing before passing assessment orders. Referring to a Division Bench judgment, the petitioner emphasized the mandatory nature of personal hearing in assessment proceedings.

3. The government advocate argued that a pre-assessment notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act 2006, which the petitioner allegedly did not respond to. The advocate claimed that sufficient opportunity was given before passing the impugned order.

4. The court noted that the petitioner's failure to respond to the pre-assessment notice was cited as reason for lack of opportunity. However, the court held that the principles of natural justice, including the right of personal hearing, were violated by the assessing officer.

5. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned demand and remanded the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The court directed the second respondent to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, including the right of personal hearing, and pass fresh orders within twelve weeks.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, legal provisions, court's observations, and the final decision in the judgment, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.