9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 63 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of natural justice - Service of order - TNVAT Act - case of petitioner is that the petitioner did not receive revisional notices prior to the impugned orders, that impugned orders were served on the writ petitioner only in the second week of June 2019, that only from the impugned orders the writ petitioner came to know that two revisional notices dated 26.07.2017 (first revisional notice) and 22.11.2017 (second revisional notice) were issued prior to the impugned orders. HELD THAT - The writ petitioner has admittedly paid around 50% of the tax/penalty liability qua impugned orders - there is also no difficulty in accepting the submission that writ petitioner being given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against impugned orders is statutorily imperative in the light of proviso to sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 27 of TNVAT Act. This Court is left with the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be appropriate to set aside the impugned orders, remit the matter back to the respondent for redoing the revised assessment afresh after serving the revisional notices to the writ petitioner after getting response/objections from the writ petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Revisional notices not received by the petitioner before impugned orders. - Statutory requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause against impugned orders. - Payment of around 50% of tax/penalty liability by the petitioner. - Setting aside of impugned orders and remitting the matter back to the respondent for revised assessment. Analysis: Issue 1: Revisional Notices The central theme of the six writ petitions was the non-receipt of revisional notices by the petitioner before the impugned orders were served. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of two revisional notices issued prior to the impugned orders, which were crucial for their case. This lack of notice was a pivotal point raised by the petitioner's counsel during the proceedings. Issue 2: Reasonable Opportunity The court emphasized the statutory requirement under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, that a reasonable opportunity must be given to the petitioner to show cause against the impugned orders. The court acknowledged that the petitioner had not been provided with this opportunity, which was deemed essential under the proviso to sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. Issue 3: Payment of Tax/Penalty It was revealed during the proceedings that the petitioner had already paid around 50% of the tax/penalty liability imposed by the impugned orders. This substantial payment demonstrated the petitioner's compliance and financial commitment, further highlighting the importance of affording them a fair opportunity to contest the orders. Issue 4: Setting Aside of Impugned Orders Based on the above considerations, the court decided to set aside all six impugned orders dated 15.05.2019. The orders were annulled solely due to the petitioner not being granted a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The court directed the respondent to serve the revisional notices promptly, allow the petitioner to respond, redo the revised assessment, and communicate the revised assessment orders within a specified timeframe of 12 weeks. In conclusion, the court's decision aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice by ensuring that the petitioner received a fair chance to contest the impugned orders. The judgment focused on procedural fairness and compliance with statutory requirements under the TNVAT Act, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the orders and remitting the matter back for a fresh assessment.
|
