2018 (11) TMI 1 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of revised assessment order - assessment year 2011-12 - TNVAT Act - Principles of Natural Justice - Held that - In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted his objections. Even then, the respondent ought to have independently considered the proposals and justified the same. But, the respondent has passed the impugned order. Therefore, on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revised assessment order for the assessment year 2011-12.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged a revised assessment order dated 27.03.2018. The respondent issued a show cause notice based on an inspection, and the petitioner sought time to file objections. Despite the petitioner's accountant requesting an extension till 15.04.2018, the respondent passed the impugned order without due consideration. The petitioner contended that the order was hastily issued without proper review of their representation.

The High Court noted that the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's request for an extension before passing the order. The impugned order merely confirmed the proposal without independent assessment, citing the dealer's failure to attend a hearing as the basis for confirmation. The court highlighted the importance of the Assessing Officer's independent judgment in completing assessments, as established in previous judgments.

Referring to past decisions, the court emphasized the Assessing Officer's duty to independently evaluate information and provide reasoned orders. The court found that the impugned order did not adhere to these principles, warranting its setting aside. Consequently, the court remanded the matter back to the respondent, directing the petitioner to submit objections within 15 days. The respondent was instructed to conduct a personal hearing, issue reasoned orders within two weeks, and warned of taking appropriate action if the petitioner failed to cooperate.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned order and provided clear instructions for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for independent assessment and adherence to legal principles. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.