2016 (10) TMI 144 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of order of assessment passed under the TNVAT Act for the year 2013-14 - principles of natural justice - Held that - It is not a case where the petitioner failed to utilize the opportunity, but it is a case where the petitioner was not furnished with full details. Therefore, the respondent has to necessarily redo the Assessment in accordance with law - writ petition allowed - matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration after providing opportunity of being heard to petitioner - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to assessment order under TNVAT Act for the year 2013-14 on grounds of violation of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act and CST Act, challenged the assessment order for the year 2013-14. The primary contention was that the order violated principles of natural justice. The respondent had raised two issues in the pre-revision notice: unaccounted checkpost documents for purchase and discounts received on post purchase/sales. The petitioner submitted representations, a sworn statement, and objections regarding the purchase bills mentioned by the respondent. Despite requests for full details, the respondent did not provide the necessary documents, leading to objections from the petitioner. The assessment was finalized without addressing these objections adequately.

The High Court observed that the impugned order lacked a proper discussion on the objections raised by the petitioner. It noted that the respondent failed to verify factual details provided by the petitioner, which could have avoided the writ petition. The petitioner, during the proceedings, demonstrated that certain transactions did not pertain to them based on produced details. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was not furnished with complete details, indicating a failure on the respondent's part to conduct a thorough verification process.

Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to obtain copies of bills relied upon by the petitioner, allow 15 days for filing objections, conduct a personal hearing, and redo the assessment in compliance with the law. No costs were awarded in the judgment, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The decision highlighted the importance of providing full details to parties during assessments to ensure a fair and just process.