9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1102 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem) - rectification of mistake - whether in all cases where rectification of the Assessment Order is sought for under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 is there a need for the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Dealer? - HELD THAT - In the case of AUTOMOTIVE TYRE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY ORS. 2011 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT , the 1st proviso to Section 84(1) of the Act, which makes it clear that only in cases, where the rectification which has an effect of enhancing the assessment or penalty, there is a statutory requirement for granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Dealer and not when the assessment has been confirmed. The application of the Principle of Audi Alteram Partem is a general principle, which will not apply to the cases, where there is no enhancement of assessment or penalty in an order passed under Section 84 of the Act is passed. In the case on hand, the assessment or penalty has not been enhanced by the 1st respondent but the 1st respondent has only confirmed the earlier Assessment Order passed against the petitioner in the year 2016. Therefore, there is no necessity for the 1st respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order - petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Whether an opportunity of hearing is mandatory for rectification of Assessment Order under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case is whether the Assessing Officer is required to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Dealer in all cases seeking rectification under Section 84 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their request for rectification of the Assessment Order dated 14.11.2022 by the 1st respondent. 2. Section 84 of the Act empowers the assessing authority to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record within six years from the date of the order. The Proviso to Section 84(1) specifies that an opportunity of hearing is necessary only when the rectification would result in enhancing an assessment or penalty. 3. The petitioner did not challenge the original Assessment Order through a statutory appeal but opted for rectification under Section 84 after more than six years. The petitioner requested an opportunity to explain further, but the request was rejected by the respondents. 4. The Court held that a rectification application under Section 84 is not equivalent to a regular assessment. The legislature included the Proviso to Section 84(1) to mandate a hearing only when there is an enhancement of assessment or penalty. In this case, since the assessment was not enhanced, the Assessing Officer was not obligated to grant a hearing. 5. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no fault in the impugned order. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a revision under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 within a week. The revisional authority was directed to expedite the process due to the petitioner's property being scheduled for public auction. 6. The Court referenced previous judgments to support the principle that an opportunity of hearing is required only when there is an enhancement of assessment or penalty. The application of Audi Alteram Partem does not apply when there is no enhancement in the order passed under Section 84 of the Act. 7. Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer to reject the petitioner's request for rectification, as there was no necessity to provide an opportunity of hearing in this case.
|
