2021 (5) TMI 257 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - reasonable opportunity given to the petitioner to explain his case or not - HELD THAT - Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, provides for reasonable opportunity, which includes the personal hearing. However, the petitioner has not been given personal hearing and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter needs consideration afresh. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity including the personal hearing as contemplated under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash impugned order dated 30.05.2019 in TIN.33475241325/2014-15 under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Concern Proprietor, filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the order of the second respondent dated 30.05.2019. The petitioner's Concern was registered under TIN33475241325, and an original-cum-self assessment order was passed in 2014-2015 accepting the returns. Subsequently, summons were issued for account verification, but due to the serious health condition of the petitioner's son, the accounts were not produced. Despite producing the death certificate of his son, a pre-revision notice was issued, leading to the impugned order on 31.05.2019 and a demand notice on 04.11.2019. The petitioner argued that Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act mandates a reasonable opportunity to explain, which was not provided. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment emphasizing the right to a personal hearing. On the other hand, the Special Government Pleader contended that opportunities were given, but the petitioner failed to avail them, justifying the impugned order.

The Court considered the submissions and examined Section 27 of the Act, which requires a reasonable opportunity including a personal hearing. Observing that the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing, the Court concluded that the impugned order should be set aside for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized the importance of personal hearing and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the second respondent, ensuring compliance with Section 27 of the Act. The Court ordered the second respondent to complete the reconsideration within eight weeks from the date of the order, without imposing any costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.