2017 (8) TMI 1260 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - validity of assessment - non application of mind on the part of the respondents - Held that - this court can safely presume that the respondent had passed these impugned orders solely for the purpose of implementing the proposal given by the Enforcement Wing, which should not have been done, as pointed out by this Court, in several decisions, that the report of the Enforcement Wing can, at best, be a cause of action, for issuing show cause notice. Once the dealer files objections, the Assessing Officer has to independently apply his mind and take a decision on the facts placed before him - matters are remanded back to the respondent, for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for multiple years under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged the assessment orders for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The court acknowledged the usual remedy of appealing to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but decided to entertain the writ petitions due to glaring errors in the assessment orders. The assessments were found to violate principles of natural justice and lacked proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Despite detailed objections and requests for information by the petitioner, the assessments were completed in a cryptic manner, indicating a lack of thorough consideration.

The court noted that the assessment orders for all years were identical and contained factual inaccuracies regarding the dates of objections filed by the petitioner. The Assessing Officer failed to address crucial requests for information made by the petitioner, leading to incomplete consideration of the objections. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer should have independently assessed the facts presented instead of merely implementing proposals from the Enforcement Wing.

Citing previous judgments, the court highlighted the necessity of providing a personal hearing to the dealer in complex cases, which was not done in this instance. The court concluded that the impugned assessment orders were passed without due diligence and must be set aside. The writ petitions were allowed, and the matters were remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to facilitate the petitioner's participation, provide adequate time for additional objections, conduct a personal hearing, and issue a reasoned order in accordance with the law.

In summary, the court found the assessment orders to be deficient in various aspects, including procedural fairness and proper consideration of objections. The judgment emphasized the importance of due process and independent assessment by the authorities, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders for reevaluation in compliance with legal requirements.