2021 (12) TMI 70 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - impugned order passed without furnishing the copy of the report which was directed to be furnished by this Court - HELD THAT - Though the petitioner is correct in stating that the order dated 03.09.2014 in W.P.No.23785 of 2014 was not fully complied, it is noticed that the order passed by the respondent which is challenged in this writ petition was not based on the aforesaid report which was directed to be furnished. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order passed by the respondent on merits The petitioner did not take advantage of the personal hearing afforded by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order stating that the impugned order is either a non-speaking order or was passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice. Further, what is evident is that the petitioner has scuttled the proceedings by filing frivolous writ petitions twice and this is the third attempt. The petitioner is given liberty to workout the remedy before the Appellate Commissioner by filing an appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with court orders regarding furnishing reports.
2. Petitioner's objections and responses not considered by the respondent.
3. Validity of the impugned order passed by the respondent.
4. Adequacy of opportunities provided to the petitioner for personal hearing.
5. Allegations of non-compliance with Principles of Natural Justice.
6. Petitioner's history of filing multiple writ petitions.
7. Dismissal of the current writ petition and alternative remedy before the Appellate Commissioner.

Comprehensive Analysis:

1. The petitioner approached the court for the third time due to non-compliance with previous orders regarding the furnishing of reports. The petitioner argued that the respondent had not provided the necessary report as directed by the court, leading to a breach of the court order.

2. The petitioner claimed that the respondent did not consider their submissions and objections adequately. The respondent was accused of passing the impugned order without providing the petitioner with the required report, as directed by the court in a previous order.

3. The respondent defended the impugned order, stating that it was not based on the report directed to be furnished earlier. The respondent also argued that the petitioner had ample opportunities to participate in the proceedings but failed to take advantage of them.

4. The court noted that while the petitioner was correct in stating that previous orders were not fully complied with, the impugned order was not based on the specific report in question. The court emphasized that the petitioner had not utilized the opportunities provided for a personal hearing, and attempting to close the file on that basis was not acceptable.

5. The court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition. The petitioner was granted the liberty to appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within thirty days, subject to compliance with relevant provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

6. The court highlighted the petitioner's history of filing multiple writ petitions, indicating a pattern of attempting to disrupt the proceedings. This history influenced the court's decision to dismiss the current writ petition.

7. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek remedy through an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a specified timeframe. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal procedures and the need to utilize available opportunities for a fair hearing.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed issues related to compliance with court orders, consideration of petitioner's objections, validity of the impugned order, adequacy of opportunities provided, allegations of non-compliance with Principles of Natural Justice, petitioner's history of filing multiple writ petitions, and the dismissal of the current writ petition in favor of seeking an alternative remedy before the Appellate Commissioner.