2015 (12) TMI 373 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Denial of input tax credit - Discrepancy in monthy return - opportunity of being heard not given - Held that - no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. Further, there is no such reference with regard to the purchase bills produced by the petitioner, when the petitioner complied Section 19(1) as well as Rule 10(2) of the TNVAT Act & Rules for claiming ITC, the denial of the same, for the lapses on the part of the sellers, cannot be justified. Hence, in the interest of justice, yet another opportunity is to be provided to the petitioner for placing all the materials along with objections, if any, before the respondent. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging orders of respondent for purchase suppression, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, denial of opportunity of personal hearing, non-consideration of purchase bills, compliance with TNVAT Act & Rules, setting aside impugned orders, remitting matters for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the challenge to the orders of the respondent regarding purchase suppression for the assessment years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. The petitioner had submitted transaction details and purchase bills to the respondent but was unable to file a reply to the notices issued. The petitioner met the respondent, provided purchase bills, and requested the proposal to be dropped. However, the respondent passed assessment orders without considering the purchase bills, leading to the petitioner alleging a violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The court noted that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner and that the purchase bills were not considered, which could not be justified given the petitioner's compliance with the TNVAT Act & Rules for claiming ITC. Thus, the court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

The court emphasized the importance of providing the petitioner with another opportunity to present all materials and objections before the respondent. It directed the petitioner to file objections along with documentary evidence, such as purchase bills, within two weeks. The respondent was instructed to consider the objections and details and pass orders on merits, affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within six weeks thereafter. By doing so, the court aimed to ensure that the petitioner's rights were upheld, and the matter was resolved in accordance with the law and Principles of Natural Justice.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned orders, remitting the matters for fresh consideration, and allowing the petitioner to present objections and evidence within a specified timeframe. The judgment focused on upholding procedural fairness, ensuring compliance with relevant laws, and granting the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard and have their case considered on its merits.