2016 (3) TMI 982 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of order - Violation of principles of natural justice - Order passed without taken in to consideration of sum paid by the appellant and without following the provisions of the Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Act and no opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order provided - Held that - the petitioner should be given an opportunity to putforth their case before the respondents and that the respondents should consider the objections raised by the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues involved:
Petitioner challenging rejection of application under Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, 2002 for settlement of disputes without considering penalty paid, lack of opportunity for hearing, and non-consideration of representations under Samadhan Scheme.

Analysis:
The petitioner contended that the 1st respondent did not consider the sum paid by them in accordance with Section 6(1) of the Act and passed the order without following provisions of Sections 6(2) and 6(3) and without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. It was argued that the impugned order did not take into account the Samadhan Scheme and representations submitted by the petitioner. The Designated Authority is required to consider the penalty amount paid by the applicant before filing the application under Section 6(1) of the Act.

In the case at hand, the 1st respondent found that the amount paid towards tax could not be considered as payment towards penalty as the petitioner disputed the penalty levied under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax. Additionally, any refund due to the applicant for another year could not be adjusted towards the settlement amount. The impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's contentions and without providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Court directed the matter to be reconsidered by the respondents, emphasizing that the petitioner should be given a chance to present their case and that the objections raised should be taken into account. The impugned order was set aside, and the 2nd respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner within eight weeks. If a certificate is issued in favor of the petitioner, the deposit made pursuant to the Court's order should be refunded. The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs incurred.