2019 (9) TMI 272 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Defects noticed at the time of inspection - deemed assessment u/s 22(2) of TNVAT Act - validity of revised assessment order - proceedings u/s 27(1)(a) of TNVAT Act - opportunity to show cause - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court had already taken a view that with regard to the proviso to Section 27(1)(a), reasonable opportunity to show cause against such orders will suffice and it is not statutorily imperative to hold personal hearing unlike proviso to Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act - This is a case where the 1st respondent Assessing officer, in his discretion, has thought it fit to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner dealer. This Court is left with the considered view that this is an appropriate case to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the 1st respondent, for redoing the revised assessment after holding a personal hearing and taking into account the writ petitioner dealer's reply / objections dated 19.10.2018 sent in response to revisional notice dated 20.09.2018 - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to impugned orders passed under Section 27(1)(a) of TNVAT Act
- Consideration of writ petitioner's reply/objections in personal hearing
- Setting aside impugned orders and remitting the matter back for revised assessment

Analysis:

Challenge to Impugned Orders:
The judgment pertains to five writ petitions arising under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006. The common factual matrix involves different Assessment Years, with the central theme being the same across all petitions. The impugned orders, passed under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, were challenged for not explicitly mentioning the legal provisions under which they were issued. The court clarified the discretion of the Assessing officer to hold a personal hearing for revised assessments under Section 27, even though it is not statutorily mandatory. In this case, the Assessing officer chose to afford a personal hearing to the writ petitioner, which was deemed appropriate by the court.

Consideration of Writ Petitioner's Reply/Objections:
The pivotal issue in the challenge to the impugned orders was the consideration of the writ petitioner's reply/objections in the personal hearing. The court highlighted that the personal hearing was conducted before the office of the Assessing officer received the writ petitioner's response to the revisional notice. It was emphasized that if the revisional notice was a determinant for the impugned orders, the Assessing officer should have also taken into account the writ petitioner's reply/objections. The court found discrepancies in the sequence of events regarding the personal hearing and the receipt of the petitioner's response, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned orders.

Setting Aside Impugned Orders and Remitting for Revised Assessment:
Based on the above analysis, the court concluded that the impugned orders should be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Assessing officer for redoing the revised assessment. The court directed a fresh personal hearing, where the writ petitioner would present submissions based on their previous reply/objections. The Assessing officer was instructed to conduct the revised assessment expeditiously, within eight weeks of the personal hearing, and communicate the revised assessment orders to the petitioner in accordance with the TNVAT Act rules. The judgment concluded by disposing of the five writ petitions with the outlined directions, without imposing any costs.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court and the detailed reasoning behind setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter for a fresh assessment process.