2022 (2) TMI 540 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking order even though a reply of the petitioner was already on record with the respondent as is evident from the discussion in the impugned order under the caption penalty - HELD THAT - Pursuant to the quashing of the order dated 05.04.2018 in W.P.Nos.4900 to 4905 of 2018, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent. The impugned order precedes a notice dated 22.07.2021. The said notice called upon the petitioner to furnish the details to finalise the revised assessment for Assessment Year 2016-2017. Though the notice was issued and called upon the petitioner to furnish the details, the petitioner failed to file any reply. In the earlier round itself, the petitioner has filed a reply to the original notice issued under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. While passing the impugned order, the respondent ought to have considered the same even if the petitioner had failed to file the reply in response to notice dated 22.07.2021, in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 05.04.2018. The impugned order is liable to be declared as non-speaking order and therefore liable to be quashed - the impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the impugned notice on the ground of passing a non-speaking order.
2. Failure of the petitioner to furnish details in response to the notice.
3. Consideration of petitioner's earlier reply in the assessment process.
4. Request for a speaking order and final opportunity to reply to the notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent in TIN 33444382455/2016-17 dated 31.08.2021. This was the second round of litigation before the court, with the earlier writ petitions being allowed, setting aside the assessment order dated 19.01.2018. The court observed that the Assessing Officer had erred in not considering the objections raised by the petitioner and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Pursuant to this order, the respondent passed the impugned order, confirming the original proposals due to the petitioner's failure to provide documentary evidence or proposals despite opportunities given.

The petitioner challenged the impugned notice, arguing that the respondent passed a non-speaking order despite the petitioner's reply being on record. The respondent contended that the petitioner had not provided any additional reply or evidence in support of their defense. The court noted that the impugned order was non-speaking and remitted the case back to the respondent for a speaking order within 45 days. The petitioner was granted a final opportunity to reply to the notice within 15 days, with the respondent directed to pass appropriate orders based on the available records if the petitioner failed to respond.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondent to pass a speaking order within the specified timeline. The petitioner was given a final opportunity to reply to the notice, emphasizing that no further extension would be granted. The judgment highlighted the importance of a proper assessment process and the need for a speaking order in such matters.