2015 (4) TMI 316 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of order passed - Violation of principle of natural justice - Opportunity of personal hearing not granted - Held that - It is true that notices have been issued and documents have been given and reply have been given. In the last letter, dated 25.11.2014, the department itself has given the time of one month, as sought for by the petitioner and at the same time, the petitioner made another representation on 01.12.2014, seeking for personal hearing and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned orders have been passed on 12.12.2014. If the last time granted is taken into account i.e., on 25.11.2014, the one month time has expired only on 24.12.2014, but even before that time, the impugned orders have peen passed on 12.12.2014. Not only that, the order has been passed without giving a personal hearing. It is mandatory that personal hearing is to be granted under Section 22(4) of the 'Act' and that vital fact has not been taken into consideration. - Matter remnded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner not given personal hearing as requested under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act, premature passing of order without personal hearing, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The Writ Petitions were filed on the grounds that the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing despite specific requests, which is mandatory under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner argued that personal hearing and document submission are not empty formalities based on a previous Division Bench judgment. The petitioner received relevant documents late, requested time for inquiry, and specifically sought personal hearing, but the order was prematurely passed without granting a personal hearing.

The respondent claimed that an inspection revealed tax evasion, leading to a notice being issued. The petitioner requested and was granted multiple extensions for submitting documents and seeking details. The final order was passed based on the respondent's assessment that the petitioner was evading tax and had not paid the required amount or filed an appeal.

The court noted that the petitioner's main contention was the lack of a personal hearing. Despite notices, document exchanges, and time extensions, the impugned orders were passed prematurely without granting a personal hearing as mandated by Section 22(4) of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of personal hearings as established in previous judgments. The court directed the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing on a specified date and instructed the authority to pass appropriate orders thereafter in compliance with the law.

In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment highlighted the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing as per statutory requirements.