2019 (7) TMI 893 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revised assessment order - Section 27 of TNVAT Act - opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT - In the instant case, as this Court is convinced that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case i.e., lull between the first revisional notice on 27.02.2015 and reply thereto on 10.04.2015 besides further lull after production of 23 purchase bills in 2017 itself pursuant to notice dated 29.11.2017 and comparison of 23 purchase bills 1 years after they were produced, the prayer for personal hearing has to be acceded to. The impugned order is set aside solely on the ground of personal hearing - By consent of both sides, personal hearing is fixed on 18.07.2019 at 12 Noon. Venue shall be the office of the sole respondent. Writ petitioner undertakes to avail the personal hearing on the aforesaid date, time and venue - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to grant personal hearing before passing the revised Assessment Order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Failure to grant personal hearing before passing the revised Assessment Order under the TNVAT Act

The writ petitioner, a dealer under the TNVAT Act, challenged a revised Assessment Order dated 26.04.2019 issued by the lone respondent under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. The main contention raised in the writ petition was the failure to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel argued that despite responding to the original revisional notice issued more than four years prior to the impugned order and subsequently submitting 23 purchase bills within the stipulated time, there was a significant delay in the proceedings. The petitioner contended that a personal hearing would have allowed them to explain the discrepancies between the purchase bills and the invoice numbers and dates reported in the monthly returns filed more than half a decade ago.

In support of the necessity for a personal hearing, the petitioner referred to a previous order of the Court and emphasized the importance of considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The Court acknowledged the lapse of time and delays in the proceedings, ultimately concluding that a personal hearing should have been granted to the petitioner. The Court set aside the impugned order solely on the ground of the lack of a personal hearing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. The Court directed a fresh personal hearing to be conducted, where the respondent would reconsider all objections, including the specific issue related to the 23 purchase orders, and pass a revised Assessment Order within four weeks from the date of the hearing.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions for a fresh personal hearing, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and address the issues raised in the impugned order.