2022 (12) TMI 1184 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - service of SCN - impugned order assailed on the ground that it has been made without giving notice to the writ petitioner-dealer and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT - A comparison of the signatures in the postal acknowledgement card and writ affidavit/vakalatnama reveal even to the naked eye that they are completely different. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, there is nothing before this Court to demonstrate that the writ petitioner was put on notice before making of the impugned order. It is settled law that an impugned order cannot be improved by way of a counter affidavit or by production of records, more so in matters of this nature. Therefore, as the impugned order does not say that a personal hearing has been afforded, which is held to be statutorily imperative by this Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION (CC) SBIOA VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) 2019 (9) TMI 698 - MADRAS HIGH COURT case in a legal drill under Section 22(4) of erstwhile TNVAT Act, this Court is convinced that the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground. Impugned order is set aside solely on the ground that personal hearing has not been afforded though the impugned order says that it is a legal drill under Section 22(4) of erstwhile TNVAT Act - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to an order under TNVAT Act for lack of notice and personal hearing.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Lack of Notice and Personal Hearing
The petitioner challenged an order dated 06.11.2014 made under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, alleging that it was made without notice or affording an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner, a dealer registered under the TNVAT Act, received an auction notice related to an immovable property without prior knowledge of the proceedings. The respondent provided a certified copy of the impugned order in response to the petitioner's representation. The court noted discrepancies in the notice sent to the petitioner, as it was received by a different individual, indicating a lack of proper notice. The court emphasized the importance of a personal hearing in cases under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, citing a previous judgment. The court held that the impugned order must be set aside due to the absence of a personal hearing, even if notice was assumed to have been given. The court directed the respondent to conduct a revisional exercise afresh, ensuring notice and a personal hearing to the petitioner within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras set aside the impugned order due to the lack of a personal hearing, emphasizing the statutory requirement for such a hearing in cases under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act. The court clarified that this decision did not reflect an opinion on the merits of the case. Additionally, the court directed the respondent to conduct a fresh revisional exercise, ensuring proper notice and a personal hearing for the petitioner within a stipulated period. The court also allowed both parties to address any limitation points regarding the petitioner being put on notice before or after the revision. The writ petition was disposed of with the specified directives, and no costs were awarded.