2016 (9) TMI 772 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of order of assessment - Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 entitlement of input tax credit - purchase of yarn from local registered dealer carrying of dyeing process in their factory local sales - certain quantity of Yarn sent to factory in Kerala to carry on dyeing process and is again brought back to Tamil Nadu for sale inspection by Enforcement Wing Officials pre-assessment notice sought time to file objections principles of natural justice Held that - The need for affording an opportunity of personal hearing was emphasized by the Court in the case of SRC Projects Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another 2008 (9) TMI 914 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . The impugned Assessment Orders have been passed solely based upon the report submitted by the Enforcement Wing Officials. It is settled legal position that the Assessing Officer, is an independent authority under the Act and he is bound to complete the assessment, taking into consideration the objections raised by the dealer. Therefore, the respondent would not be justified in merely adopting the report as such. However, the respondent cannot be fully faulted because the petitioner did not submit their objections in spite of sufficient time being granted. The respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and independently complete the assessment and not solely be guided by the report of the Enforcement Wing Officials. The petitioner had already paid 25% of the disputed tax for all the Assessment Years, no further coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner till fresh orders are passed petition allowed decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Orders under TNVAT Act for multiple years, violation of principles of natural justice, reliance on Enforcement Wing Officials' report, denial of opportunity of personal hearing, compliance with interim stay order.

Analysis:

Challenge to Assessment Orders:
The petitioner contested the orders of assessment passed under the TNVAT Act for the years 2008-2009 to 2014-2015. The petitioner, engaged in the business of dyeing, argued that the assessment was based on flawed grounds, particularly regarding the utilization of Input Tax Credit for goods sent to a factory in another state for processing and then brought back for local sale.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner raised concerns over the violation of principles of natural justice, emphasizing the lack of a personal hearing before the assessment orders were finalized. The petitioner contended that the Enforcement Wing Officials' report should not be the sole basis for decision-making, citing the necessity for the Assessing Officer to make an independent judgment.

Reliance on Enforcement Wing Officials' Report:
The petitioner argued against the Assessing Officer's reliance solely on the report submitted by the Enforcement Wing Officials. It was highlighted that the Assessing Officer is obligated to consider objections raised by the dealer and complete the assessment impartially. Despite the petitioner's failure to submit objections within the given time frame, it was acknowledged that the respondent should have granted a personal hearing before finalizing the assessment.

Denial of Opportunity of Personal Hearing:
The Court referenced previous judgments emphasizing the importance of affording a personal hearing to the dealer before recording any adverse findings. The failure to provide such an opportunity was considered a flaw in the assessment process, leading to the quashing of the impugned order due to the denial of a personal hearing.

Compliance with Interim Stay Order:
The record indicated that an interim stay order was granted subject to the condition of the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax for each Assessment Year. The petitioner complied with this condition, leading to the extension of the interim order. Consequently, no further coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until fresh orders were passed based on the Court's directions.

Conclusion:
In light of the circumstances, the Court decided not to set aside the assessment orders but directed the petitioner to treat the proceedings as a Show Cause Notice for each Assessment Year. The petitioner was given fifteen days to submit objections, after which a personal hearing would be provided by the respondent for independent assessment. The respondent was instructed to consider all aspects, including the petitioner's submissions and relevant documents, before issuing fresh assessment orders.