2017 (11) TMI 1036 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - validity of assessment order - Held that - in the impugned assessment orders, there is no reference to the petitioner s objections dated 23.3.2017, which were received by the officer himself. In the written instructions given to the learned Special Government Pleader, the respondent accepted that he had received the objections. If the respondent received the objections, he should have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, considered the documents that they may produce and then completed the assessment. Having not done so, the failure of the respondent would render the impugned orders unsustainable and are in violation of the principles of natural justice - the matters are remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Impugned assessment orders for the years 2010-11 to 2016-17, lack of opportunity to submit objections, absence of reference to objections in assessment orders, denial of personal hearing, imposition of penalty at 300% without jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, challenged assessment orders for various years. The petitioner raised four main points. Firstly, the revision notices did not allow for objections within a specified time frame. Secondly, although objections were submitted and acknowledged, the assessment orders did not mention them. Thirdly, the petitioner requested a personal hearing but was denied. Lastly, a 300% penalty for the 2016-17 assessment year was imposed without jurisdiction.

During the court proceedings, the Special Government Pleader argued that the petitioner failed to submit objections in time and questioned the genuineness of the transactions. The court directed the petitioner to provide proof of business activity and objection submission. The petitioner later submitted documents including a rental agreement, tax returns, and purchase/sales details. Despite acknowledging receipt of objections, the assessment orders did not reflect this information.

The court found that the assessment orders lacked reference to the petitioner's objections, which were received by the officer. The respondent should have allowed a personal hearing and considered the documents before finalizing the assessment. The failure to do so violated principles of natural justice. The court noted the validity of the petitioner's registration certificate and directed the respondent to consider all documents provided to establish genuineness.

As a result, the court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was instructed to conduct a new assessment after affording a personal hearing and ensuring accuracy in the assessment orders. Separate assessment orders under the State Act and the Central Act were mandated. No costs were awarded, and the related Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.