2019 (8) TMI 199 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - revised assessment u/s 22(4) of TNVAT Act done without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard - HELD THAT - In the aforesaid revisional notice, if the time and date of the personal hearing had been given, that would have been the end of the matter or end of campaign of the writ petitioner qua writ petitioner's challenge to impugned orders. As that has not happened, it has become necessary to peruse the nature of revision qua assessment that has been made. The nature of assessment that has been made owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, brings into sharp focus the position that it would have been desirable to send one more communication to the writ petitioner fixing a personal hearing mentioning date, time and venue with specificity. This Court comes to a conclusion that it would be appropriate to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner - respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing by communicating to writ petitioner in advance the date, time and venue, hold personal hearing, hear out all objections, redo the revision of assessment and pass revised assessment orders afresh as expeditiously as possible - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Six writ petitions challenging revised assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) based on the lack of a personal hearing before the revision.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Madras High Court addressed six writ petitions challenging revised assessment orders under the TNVAT Act. The central issue in all six petitions was the absence of a personal hearing before the revised assessments were made under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act. The petitions contended that the respondent should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard before conducting the revised assessments. The court noted that all six petitions arose from a common factual matrix, with the only difference being the assessment years for which the impugned orders were issued. The counsel for the writ petitioner focused on the requirement of a personal hearing as mandated by Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act.

The Revenue Counsel highlighted that the writ petitions were filed after a significant delay from the date of the impugned orders. It was pointed out that the writ petitioner did not send any objections in response to the revisional notice issued earlier. The court observed that the revisional notice had called for objections and provided an opportunity for a personal hearing, but the writ petitioner did not respond with objections. The court emphasized the importance of providing specific details for a personal hearing, mentioning the date, time, and venue to ensure procedural fairness.

The court acknowledged that other grounds and contentions raised by the writ petitioner were not being considered, as the focus was solely on the issue of the lack of a personal hearing. Considering the statutory requirement of a personal hearing under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, the court concluded that it was appropriate to set aside the impugned orders to facilitate a personal hearing for the writ petitioner. The court directed the respondent to afford a personal hearing, hear out all objections, redo the revision of assessments, and pass revised assessment orders promptly.

In the final order, the court set aside all six impugned orders solely to ensure the writ petitioner's right to a personal hearing in accordance with the statutory provision. The court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter. The respondent was instructed to communicate the date, time, and venue for the personal hearing, conduct the hearing, and complete the revised assessments expeditiously. The court disposed of all six writ petitions with these directions, and no costs were awarded in the matter.