2019 (8) TMI 1019 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - revised Assessment - Section 27(1) of TNVAT Act - reasonable opportunity to show-cause against revised Assessment Order - HELD THAT - There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that impugned Assessment Orders have been passed by the respondent in exercise of powers under Section 27(1) of TNVAT Act. Proviso to Section 27(1) of TNVAT Act mandates that a reasonable opportunity to show-cause against revised Assessment Order should be given to the writ petitioner - this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent has complied with the requirements in the proviso of giving a reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to show-cause before passing the impugned orders. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent has given more than reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to show-cause against the impugned orders. However, the problem presents itself in a different form in the instant case. In the impugned orders, after referring to revisional notice and two reminders, the respondent has held that the writ petitioner has not filed objections till the date of impugned orders and have requested for further time. It has also been held that writ petitioner had not filed any document till the date of impugned orders. This Court finds that this is a fit case to remit the matter back to the respondent directing the respondent to redo the revised assessment under Section 27(1) of TNVAT Act on the basis of revisional notice and the objections thereto together with enclosures already filed by the writ petitioner, and pass fresh revised Assessment Orders within a time frame. Impugned order set aside on the ground that it has been passed on the basis that writ petitioner has not filed objections/documents though the writ petitioner has submitted objections and documents - Respondent shall redo the revised assessment under Section 27(1) of TNVAT Act on the merits - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with the proviso to Section 27(1) of TNVAT Act regarding giving a reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to show-cause against revised Assessment Orders.
2. Consideration of objections and enclosures by the respondent in passing the impugned orders.
3. Correctness of the factual assertion in the impugned orders that the writ petitioner did not file objections or documents.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The judgment deals with the compliance of the respondent with the proviso to Section 27(1) of TNVAT Act. The court found that the respondent had indeed provided a reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to show-cause against the revised Assessment Orders. The court noted that multiple communications were sent to the writ petitioner, including a revisional notice and reminders, ensuring adequate opportunities were given.

Issue 2:
Regarding the consideration of objections and enclosures by the respondent, the court pointed out a crucial flaw in the impugned orders. It was highlighted that the respondent failed to mention in the orders that the objections and enclosures had been considered. The court emphasized that it is essential for the respondent to record findings on the objections and enclosures in the Assessment Orders, which was absent in this case.

Issue 3:
The factual inaccuracy in the impugned orders, where it was stated that the writ petitioner had not filed objections or documents, was a significant concern addressed by the court. The court found this assertion to be incorrect based on the evidence presented, noting that objections had indeed been filed along with relevant documents. The court deemed this factual inaccuracy as a critical factor in setting aside the impugned orders.

In conclusion, the court decided to remit the matter back to the respondent for a fresh revised assessment under Section 27(1) of TNVAT Act. The court directed the respondent to consider the objections and enclosures already filed by the writ petitioner and pass fresh Assessment Orders within a specified time frame. The judgment clarified that the impugned orders were set aside solely due to the incorrect assertion that the writ petitioner had not submitted objections or documents, emphasizing the importance of proper consideration of submissions in assessment proceedings.