2022 (3) TMI 355 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking release of detained goods - levy of composition fee - certain documents which are to be carried by the conveyance were not available - HELD THAT - After the order was passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, where, direction was given to the petitioner to pay the disputed tax, the tax was paid, accordingly the vehicle in question was released, thereafter, the learned Judge has made it clear that, insofar as composition fee is concerned, the authorities will proceed in accordance with law with the provisions of Section 72 of the TNVAT Act - In order to proceed with regard to the composition fee, the Adjudication Authority i.e., the Revenue issued the second adjudication notice dated 19.07.2015. Having receipt of the same, the petitioner replied for the same by reply letter dated 29.08.2015 and the same was received by the respondent. This Court has no hesitation to hold that, the reply given by the petitioner has not been considered in proper perspective, without which, since the order was passed confirming the proposal already made with regard to the composition fee by the order impugned and the copy of the same also since has not been served, as claimed by the petitioner, the said order in the legal scrutiny may not stand and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order dated 04.09.2015
2. Consideration of petitioner's reply in the adjudication process
3. Violation of principles of natural justice

Validity of the order dated 04.09.2015:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order dated 04.09.2015 issued by the Revenue. The order demanded a compounding fee of ?3,64,300 for a second adjudication notice issued to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without considering their reply to the notice dated 19.07.2015, which was promptly responded to on 29.08.2015. The petitioner contended that the order was not served on them and did not mention their response, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice. The Additional Government Pleader argued that the reply was indeed considered before passing the order, and the delay of six years in challenging the order was unreasonable. The court noted that the petitioner's reply had not been properly considered in the impugned order, leading to a lack of due process. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing for the petitioner and the proper consideration of their submissions.

Consideration of petitioner's reply in the adjudication process:
After an initial order directing the petitioner to pay disputed tax and releasing the detained vehicle, a second adjudication notice was issued in 2015. The petitioner responded promptly to this notice on 29.08.2015. However, the court found that the content of the petitioner's reply was not adequately considered in the subsequent order dated 04.09.2015. The court emphasized the importance of proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions in adjudication proceedings to ensure a fair and just decision-making process.

Violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioner argued that the order dated 04.09.2015 was passed without serving them a copy and without mentioning their response to the adjudication notice. This, according to the petitioner, constituted a violation of principles of natural justice. The court agreed that the failure to serve the order and the lack of mention of the petitioner's reply in the impugned order raised concerns about due process and fairness. As a result, the court set aside the order and directed a reconsideration of the matter with proper adherence to principles of natural justice, including providing the petitioner with a personal hearing and considering their submissions effectively.