2015 (8) TMI 347 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of Ex-parte orders - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - Petitioner has remained silent even after receipt of the notice dated 30.03.2015, the petitioner, in their letter dated 13.04.2015 has mentioned two things viz., (1) the petitioner has requested the respondent to refer their reply for defect No.10 as recorded in sworn statement and (2) they have asked for personal hearing to produce the remaining F Forms for ₹ 37.37 crores. When that was the request of the petitioner, the respondent, before passing the impugned order, as per the ratio laid down in the case of SRC Projects P. Ltd vs. CCT (Mad) reported in 2008 (9) TMI 914 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , in my considered opinion, should have answered to the letter of the petitioner dated 13.04.2015. Admittedly, in the present case, pursuant to the request made by the petitioner dated 13.04.2015, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. - Matter remanded back - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders for violation of natural justice and principles of personal hearing.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer for not providing a personal hearing to the petitioner before confirming the proposal, which is deemed mandatory. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent failed to consider the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner and did not grant the requested personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner had specifically requested a personal hearing to explain their case in detail, but the respondent passed the impugned orders without providing this opportunity. The Senior Counsel cited a circular and previous court decisions emphasizing the importance of personal hearings in such cases. However, the Senior Counsel admitted that the petitioner did not send a reply after receiving notices dated 30.03.2015, but maintained that the request for a personal hearing was made in a written representation on 13.04.2015.

The Additional Government Pleader contended that the impugned order was appealable, and the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority instead of directly coming to the High Court. The petitioner's failure to respond to the notice dated 30.03.2015 was highlighted as a reason for directing the petitioner to the appellate authority. The court acknowledged the merit in the respondent's argument regarding the petitioner's silence after receiving the notice but found that the petitioner had requested a personal hearing in their letter dated 13.04.2015. Referring to a previous case law, the court emphasized the importance of responding to such requests for personal hearings. As the petitioner was not provided with a personal hearing despite their request, the court decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh orders, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for passing fresh orders after the petitioner submits their reply and is granted a personal hearing. The court directed the petitioner to submit their reply within a week from receiving the order copy, following which the respondent was instructed to provide a personal hearing before passing fresh orders in compliance with the law. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.