2018 (2) TMI 1657 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - It is the case of the petitioner that the returns filed by the petitioner for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 had been accepted by the respondent and an order was passed under section 22 of the TNVAT Act - Held that - considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has to re-do the assessment, the matters are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment commencing from the stage of issuing notice of proposal, after following guidelines/procedures issued by this Court - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Petitioner filed writ petitions seeking Writs of Certiorari to quash respondent's orders for being invalid, illegal, and violative of natural justice due to non-consideration of replies for certain years. The main issue involved mismatch and violation of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to conduct an inquiry as directed by a previous judgment, leading to a violation of natural justice. The petitioner highlighted that while the reply for one year was considered, the reply for another year was not taken into account by the respondent. This non-consideration of the reply for one year formed the basis of the writ petitions.

2. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue of mismatch was already addressed in a previous decision by the Court, directing the Assessing Officer to establish a centralized mechanism for dealing with cases of mismatch before issuing notices. The Court emphasized the need for a fair and reasonable procedure to address discrepancies to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and protect revenue interests. The Court directed the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to lay out detailed procedures and evolve a centralized mechanism exclusively for handling mismatch cases.

3. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged the need for the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment in compliance with the procedures and guidelines outlined in the previous Court order. The respondent agreed that the assessment process needed to be revisited to ensure adherence to the guidelines set forth in the earlier judgment.

4. Considering the submissions from both parties and the necessity for the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment in line with the Court's directive, the Court allowed the writ petitions. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. The Assessing Officer was instructed to follow the guidelines and procedures specified in the previous Court order, including providing a personal hearing to the petitioner before finalizing the assessment. The Court mandated the completion of the reassessment process within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

By addressing the issues of mismatch and violation of natural justice, the Court's decision aimed to ensure a fair and thorough assessment process in compliance with the established procedures and guidelines, ultimately safeguarding the rights of the petitioner and upholding the principles of natural justice.