9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 578 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - suppression of purchases - mismatch in the reporting of sales and purchases between the petitioner and the other end seller - opportunity of hearing not provided to petitioner - principles of natural justice - Held that - The request made by the petitioner in his reply dated 17.04.2017, has not been considered. While passing the impugned assessment order, the reasons for rejection of the said request has also not been given in the impugned assessment order - it is evident that adequate opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioner. It is settled law that the petitioner will have to be afforded adequate opportunity before an assessment order is passed against him. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order dated 29.05.2018 under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 based on alleged suppressed purchases and mismatch in sales and purchases reporting. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged an assessment order for the year 2015-16, alleging that the respondent issued pre revision notices citing suppressed purchases and discrepancies in sales and purchases reporting. The petitioner contended that the notices lacked specific details on the alleged suppressed purchases, despite requesting related documents. The petitioner argued that without adequate information, it was challenging to disprove the claims made by the respondent. The petitioner highlighted the violation of principles of natural justice due to the lack of a proper opportunity to respond before the assessment proceedings. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel emphasized the failure of the respondent to provide essential details in the pre revision notices, making it challenging for the petitioner to address the allegations effectively. The petitioner's counsel argued that the assessment order was passed without granting sufficient opportunity to present a defense. On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader for the respondent contended that the petitioner had the opportunity for a personal hearing during the assessment proceedings and failed to respond to the second pre revision notice, which contained detailed information. The respondent's representative suggested that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory appellate remedy instead of filing a writ petition. Upon discussion, the Court observed discrepancies in the pre revision notices issued by the respondent. The Court noted that the petitioner's request for relevant documents was not adequately addressed, and the lack of detailed information in the notices hindered the petitioner's ability to contest the allegations effectively. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must be given a fair opportunity before an assessment order is finalized, highlighting the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the assessment order dated 29.05.2018, and directed the respondent to issue a fresh pre revision notice to the petitioner within two weeks. The petitioner was instructed to respond within two weeks of receiving the notice, and the respondent was mandated to pass final orders within eight weeks thereafter, ensuring a proper opportunity for the petitioner, including a right to a personal hearing. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
