2021 (5) TMI 161 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - violation of principles of natural justice - the Assessing Authority has, admittedly, afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, however, the petitioner appears to have sought an adjournment on multiple occasions - HELD THAT - The sequence of events would establish that this is a matter where, in the interests of substantial justice, the petitioner should be granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the Assessing Authority and Mr.Jayaprathap also does not object to this suggestion by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all materials necessary to substantiate the petitioner's case before the Assessing Authority are available and have, in fact, been filed along with the rectification applications itself. The impugned orders are set aside, solely for the purpose of granting an effective opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its case before the authorities. The petitioner will appear before the Assessing Authority on Monday, the 3rd of May, 2021 at 10.30 a.m. along with all/any materials in support of its contention, without expecting any further notice in this regard - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to three assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and rejection of rectification applications based on violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged three assessment orders for the periods 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, along with the rejection of rectification applications filed under Section 84 of the Act. The primary argument focused on the violation of principles of natural justice. The Assessing Authority had provided sufficient opportunities to the petitioner, who had requested multiple adjournments citing unavailability of supporting materials. Despite the petitioner's repeated requests for extensions, the Assessing Authority proceeded with the assessment, which was deemed appropriate.

The petitioner later submitted rectification applications with reconciliation statements to address discrepancies found during enforcement visits. However, these statements were rejected due to the delay in filing, as they were submitted over a year and five months after the assessment orders were issued. Despite this, in the interest of substantial justice, the Court decided to grant the petitioner another opportunity to present its case effectively before the Assessing Authority. Both parties agreed to this course of action.

Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were set aside to allow the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Authority with all necessary materials on a specified date. The petitioner was instructed to present its case either through video conference or in person, based on mutual convenience. The Assessing Authority was directed to pass fresh assessment orders within four weeks after the hearing. However, if the petitioner failed to appear, the opportunity granted would lapse, and the original assessment orders would be reinstated automatically.

In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were disposed of in the mentioned terms without imposing any costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as well.