2019 (7) TMI 243 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the respondent should have sent a response rescheduling/refixing the personal hearing - validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - Circular No.7/2014 - HELD THAT - In the light of paragraph 3(a)(i) of the aforesaid circular, which is admittedly binding on the respondent, this Court is unable to accept this submission as it is imperative that the respondent should have responded to the request for adjournment, which was made well within the 15 days stipulated in Paragraph 3(a)(i) of the circular. Therefore, the inevitable sequitur that follows is that there was no personal hearing, there is violation of NJP. The impugned orders are set aside solely on the ground of violation of NJP i.e., personal hearing, which is a prescribed procedure, not being given - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Violation of natural justice principles in the absence of a personal hearing before passing assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The case involves three writ petitions challenging original assessment orders made by the respondent under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05. The writ petitioner contended that they were not granted a proper personal hearing as required by natural justice principles.

2. Violation of Natural Justice Principles:
The pivotal ground of attack by the writ petitioner was the violation of natural justice principles due to the absence of a proper personal hearing. Despite the writ petitioner's request for an adjournment of the personal hearing due to insufficient time between the notice and the hearing date, the respondent did not respond. The court highlighted that the circular issued by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes mandated a response to such requests within fifteen days, which the respondent failed to comply with.

3. Court's Decision:
The court found that the failure to respond to the writ petitioner's request for adjournment within the stipulated time amounted to a violation of natural justice principles. As a result, the court set aside the impugned assessment orders solely on the ground of the procedural irregularity, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court ordered a fresh personal hearing to be conducted, where the writ petitioner would file final objections and supporting documents. The respondent was directed to redo the assessment and pass fresh assessment orders within six weeks from the date of the personal hearing.

4. Conclusion:
The court disposed of the three writ petitions with the above directions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative proceedings. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of providing a fair opportunity to be heard before making decisions that affect the rights of individuals under tax laws.