2021 (1) TMI 660 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - allegation that the impugned orders have been issued even without affording an opportunity of being heard to his client, but recording that the applicable returns have not been filed - HELD THAT - The petitioner has not been heard and it is so recorded in the said orders. Thus, they require to be given the opportunity of being heard before an assessment of the nature as Exs.P12 and P13 can be allowed to operate. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P12 and P13, not because it is found against it affirmatively, but so as to pave way for a fresh consideration at the hands of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is directed to mark appearance in the office of the 2nd respondent at 11.00 a.m. on 19/01/2021; on which day, they will either be heard or a suitable date fixed for such purpose - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Impugning assessment orders issued without affording an opportunity of being heard.
2. Validity of assessment orders Exts.P12 and P13.
3. Whether assessment orders can be set aside.
4. Possibility of allowing a fresh assessment with an opportunity to be heard.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Hotel, challenged assessment orders Exts.P12 and P13 issued by the State Tax Officer without being heard. The petitioner's counsel argued that the orders were issued without offering a hearing, despite the returns being filed. On the other hand, the Government Pleader acknowledged the lack of hearing but defended the validity of the orders, stating that proper assessment was conducted. The Court noted that the petitioner was not heard, as evident from the orders, and deemed it necessary to provide an opportunity for a fair hearing before allowing the assessments to stand. Consequently, the Court set aside Exts.P12 and P13, not on a negative finding but to facilitate a fresh assessment by the State Tax Officer after affording the petitioner a proper hearing.

The Court directed the State Tax Officer to conduct a fresh assessment promptly, ensuring the petitioner's authorized representative is heard either physically or through video conferencing. The fresh assessment was mandated to be completed within two months from the date of the judgment. To facilitate compliance, the petitioner was instructed to appear before the State Tax Officer's office on a specified date for a hearing or to schedule a suitable hearing date. The judgment aimed to uphold principles of natural justice by providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case before a revised assessment is made.

In conclusion, the Court's decision emphasized the importance of granting a fair hearing before issuing assessment orders. By setting aside the original orders and mandating a fresh assessment with proper hearing procedures, the judgment sought to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in tax assessments.