2019 (3) TMI 773 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act - Held that - It is admitted fact that the pre-assessment notice as well as the impugned assessment order were sent by the respondent only to the address at No.116/1-20B, Belimer Complex, Veppamoodu Junction, Nagercoil, whereas the registered office of the petitioner as per the respondent records is at No.94, Ramakrishna Nilayam, S.P.Office Road, East of Tower, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District - It is the case of the petitioner that he has not received the preassessment notice as well as the impugned assessment order and it is his case that only an employee of the petitioner s son had received the notice. When the impugned assessment order was served at the address of the petitioner s son, the petitioner s son was hospitalized as he met with an accident. It is also evident from the assessment order that the respondent did not give personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned assessment order. In the instant case, admittedly, the pre-assessment notice as well as the impugned assessment order were sent to the wrong address instead of the registered address of the petitioner and no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is the considered view that the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration by affording sufficient opportunity - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 due to incorrect address of notice and violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged the assessment order dated 14.03.2016, claiming that the pre-assessment notice and assessment order were sent to the wrong address of the petitioner's son instead of the registered address. The petitioner argued that this violated the principles of natural justice as he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to raise objections or given a personal hearing. The petitioner also disputed liability for tax and penalty as per the assessment order, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel highlighted the incorrect address issue, citing Rule 19(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, which mandates sending notices to the registered address of the dealer. The counsel emphasized that the lack of personal hearing and failure to send notices to the correct address infringed on the petitioner's rights. Reference was made to a previous judgment where the right to a personal hearing for the assessee was deemed mandatory, even in the absence of a response from the assessee.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader contended that despite the notice being received, the petitioner did not respond or present their case before the respondent. It was argued that the petitioner should have pursued alternative remedies under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court acknowledged that the notices were indeed sent to the wrong address, and the petitioner had not received them due to extenuating circumstances, such as the son's hospitalization following an accident. The Court also noted the absence of a personal hearing for the petitioner before the assessment order was passed. Citing a previous Division Bench judgment, it held that denying the petitioner a personal hearing amounted to a breach of natural justice, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the right to a personal hearing even if objections were not filed.

Consequently, the Court quashed the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to raise objections, grant a personal hearing, and dispose of the proceedings within eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.