9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 830 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of order of assessment - The petitioner claims that the very notice dated 03.10.2016, was served on the petitioner only on 15.10.2016 and therefore, they were not in a position to appear for the personal hearing on 14.10.2016. However, the respondent passed the impugned order of assessment on 31.10.2016, stating that the petitioner did not file any objections and also not attended the 3 personal hearing on the date fixed - Held that - the respondent is not justified in concluding that the petitioner has not filed their objections and attended the personal hearing, inspite of receipt of the notice dated 03.10.2016. Therefore, it is evident that the principles of natural justice is violated in this case. On that ground, the order of assessment has to be set aside and the matter needs to be remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh order after hearing the petitioner - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in the assessment order. 2. Adherence to guidelines/directions issued by the court for assessments based on web reports. Detailed analysis: 1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, challenged an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The appellate authority remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh orders after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent issued a notice on 03.10.2016, but the petitioner claimed it was served on 15.10.2016, a day after the scheduled personal hearing. The High Court found that the notice was indeed served late, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. 2. The assessment was primarily based on a web report, prompting the petitioner's counsel to point out the need for the respondent to follow guidelines/directions issued by the court in a previous case. The court referred to a specific order in W.P.No.105 of 2016 dated 01.03.2017, which emphasized the importance of a centralized mechanism to deal with cases of mismatch in assessments. The court directed the respondent to evolve a central mechanism following the guidelines laid out in the previous order. Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for a fresh assessment order, with a directive to adhere to the guidelines provided in the previous judgment within a specified timeframe.
|
