2021 (5) TMI 619 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has gone to the office of the respondent more than one occasion with the books of accounts, but they did not verify - HELD THAT - Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, provides for reasonable opportunity, which includes the personal hearing. Even if the petitioner has not replied or file any objection, it is the duty of the respondent to give the petitioner personal hearing by giving a notice to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing. Though the respondent has stated that the petitioner was called to produce the books of accounts, he has not produced. But, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has produced the books of accounts more than once, but it was not verified by the respondent. 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. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment proceedings under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the year 2015-16.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an authorized agent of a government enterprise, challenged the assessment proceedings for the year 2015-16 conducted by the respondent. The petitioner alleged that despite regularly filing returns and paying taxes, the respondent issued a Best of Judgment Notice proposing to re-determine turnover without verifying the petitioner's accounts. The petitioner contended that no opportunity for personal hearing was granted to explain their case, especially considering the goods being exempted from tax under Section 30 of the TNVAT Act.

The petitioner, a physically challenged person, argued that illness prevented a timely response, emphasizing the lack of personal hearing. The petitioner cited a Division Bench judgment stating that failure to respond to a pre-assessment notice does not justify denying a personal hearing. In contrast, the respondent claimed to have provided opportunities for the petitioner to present accounts and objections, justifying the impugned order as a result of the petitioner's inaction.

Upon review, the Court noted the petitioner's assertions of multiple attempts to submit accounts, which were allegedly not verified by the respondent. The Court emphasized Section 27(4) of the TNVAT Act, requiring reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, even in the absence of objections. Considering the circumstances, the Court concluded that the impugned order lacked merit and required fresh consideration with proper opportunity for personal hearing.

Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the respondent for reevaluation within eight weeks. The respondent was directed to provide a personal hearing as per statutory provisions, ensuring a fair assessment process. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, resolving the dispute regarding the assessment proceedings under the TNVAT Act for the specified year.