2019 (4) TMI 459 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - reply to pre-assessment notice not given by petitioner - on the very same day when the petitioner had submitted its reply (after lapse of stipulated period), the authority passed the impugned order - Held that - Indeed, the petitioner received the Ext.P9 notice on 30.05.2018. And the notice required the petitioner to submit its reply in seven days; it also provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 11.06.2018. As has been rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, within the time stipulated the petitioner has not replied to the notice nor has its representativs appeared for personal hearing. If the petitioner s grievance remains that the assessing authority has not considered the petitioner s reply in proper perspective, then it can be said that its an aspect of adjudication, or the lack of it, on merits. By no stretch can can it be called a lapse on the part of the authorities in following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner can avail efficacious alternative remedy if it wishes - Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment order

The judgment revolves around the petitioner, an assessee, receiving a pre-assessment notice, Ext.P1, on 30.05.2018, requiring a reply within a week and offering a personal hearing on 11.06.2018. Despite not responding within the stipulated time or attending the hearing, the petitioner submitted the reply, Ext.P2, six months later on 31.12.2018, followed by the assessing authority passing the assessment order, Ext.P3, on the same day. The petitioner contested Ext.P3, alleging a violation of natural justice principles by the assessing authority.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the authority violated natural justice by passing the order on the same day as receiving the reply, leaving insufficient time to address the raised objections. It was also highlighted that the petitioner was willing to provide additional material if a personal hearing was required, emphasizing the lack of such an opportunity. The counsel contended that Ext.P3 suffered from a breach of natural justice principles.

In response, the Government Pleader asserted that the petitioner had opportunities to respond to Ext.P1 and participate in a hearing, which were not utilized. The Pleader claimed that the authority did consider Ext.P2 in the assessment order, addressing the petitioner's contentions. The Pleader argued that any grievance should be on merits, not on the grounds of violating natural justice.

After hearing both parties, the court acknowledged that the petitioner failed to respond to Ext.P1 within the specified time or attend the hearing as required. Regarding Ext.P2, the court noted ample reference to the reply in Ext.P3 but acknowledged the petitioner's argument about the lack of discussion on merits. The court concluded that any grievance about the authority not considering the reply properly pertained to the merits of the case, not a breach of natural justice principles.

The court clarified that the petitioner had the option to appeal the decision and that any delay due to pursuing the writ petition would be excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal. The court refrained from expressing a view on the merits, leaving it to the authority to adjudicate the issue. Any coercive action was deferred for a month to allow the petitioner to file a statutory appeal, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.