2020 (5) TMI 502 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - Evasion of tax - fake bills - stand of the petitioner is that the documents purported to have been sent vide letter dated 02.11.2011 were never received and therefore, the petitioner has not been able to file a reply - HELD THAT - Though a detailed counter has been filed by the respondent, there is no specific denial to the allegation of the petitioner that the documents had not been served in person. Since the impugned order has been passed without furnishing the documents and the impugned order is merely based on the averments that the documents were served to one Tmt.Leelavathi on 05.12.2011, the impugned order is quashed by remitting the case back to the respondent to pass fresh orders. The petitioner is therefore directed to appear before the respondent on the 1st instance before the 1st respondent on 30.06.2020 to collect the documents specified in letter dated 02.11.2011 - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Alleged tax evasion by the petitioner.
2. Failure to furnish documents to the petitioner.
3. Violation of the principle of natural justice in passing the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a dealer in Grams registered under the TNGST Act and CST Act, filed returns for 2001-02 with a taxable turnover under TNGST and nil under CST. Following an inspection that revealed potential tax evasion through issuing bills to suppress CST, the petitioner was accused of evading tax. Subsequently, an order was issued determining the taxable turnover for 2001-02. A writ petition was filed challenging this order, leading to its setting aside by the Court due to the Government Advocate's undertaking. The case was remitted back for document submission and further proceedings.

2. Post the Court's direction, documents were dispatched to the petitioner, who claimed non-receipt of crucial documents, hindering the reply filing. Despite reminders and another related writ petition filed by a partner regarding bank account attachment, the petitioner's stance on non-receipt persisted. The respondent's counter did not refute the non-receipt allegation. The Court observed the impugned order's basis on serving documents to an individual and interfered with it, quashing the order and remitting the case for fresh consideration.

3. The Court found the impugned order lacking in furnishing documents to the petitioner, leading to a violation of the principle of natural justice. As a remedy, the impugned order was set aside, directing the petitioner to collect specified documents and submit a fresh reply within 30 days. The respondent was instructed to pass appropriate orders within three months, possibly through video conferencing due to the ongoing pandemic situation. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice.