2023 (3) TMI 168 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Application for rectification of the assessment orders rejected - challenged to impugned orders on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the reply sent, has not been considered by the respondent in the impugned orders - seeking grant of opportunity of being heard (audi alterem partem) - HELD THAT - While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in the case of TVL SRI RAGAVA MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORES, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. ARIVAZHAGAN VERSUS THE DEPUTY SALES TAX OFFICER, THIRUKOILUR ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, THIRUKOILUR., THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES EZHILAGHAM, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI 2023 (1) TMI 1102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , after extracting section 84 of the Act, 2006 which deals with the rectification application held that as per the provisions of Section 84 of the Act, only in cases of enhancement of Assessment or Penalty, the respondents will have to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the respondents have confirmed the Assessment made in the year 2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in the impugned order, the question of granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner will not arise. In the case on hand in the impugned orders passed under section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, there is no enhancement of assessment or penalty and therefore, there is no necessity for the respondent to adhere to the principles of natural justice as claimed by the petitioner in these writ petitions. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging orders under section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging orders dated 21.12.2022 under section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, rejecting the rectification application for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The petitioner contended a violation of natural justice as their reply was allegedly not considered. Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted that rectification under Section 84 is permissible only for errors apparent on the face of the record in the assessment order. The Court emphasized that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory only in cases of enhancement of assessment or penalty. Since there was no enhancement in the present case, the Court found no necessity for the respondent to adhere to the principles of natural justice as claimed by the petitioner.

The Court cited its previous order and reiterated that rectification under Section 84 cannot be equated with a regular assessment. The Court emphasized that the legislature included provisions to afford an opportunity of hearing to the dealer only in cases of enhancement of assessment or penalty. As the impugned orders did not involve enhancement, the Court found no merit in the writ petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions without costs, following the principles established in the previous case.

In conclusion, the Court held that since there was no enhancement of assessment or penalty in the impugned orders under section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the respondent was not required to adhere to the principles of natural justice as claimed by the petitioner. The Court relied on its previous judgment to support the dismissal of the writ petitions, emphasizing that rectification under Section 84 is limited to cases where there are errors apparent on the face of the record in the assessment order.