2020 (9) TMI 933 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - Validity of Assessment Order - order of the Tribunal is assailed on the ground that opportunity of hearing is denied to revisionist - HELD THAT - Admittedly the order of the Tribunal is ex-parte inasmuch as it is recorded that none has appeared on behalf of the revisionist. This observation is assailed by contending in para 14 to 16 that in fact the Tribunal observed in open Court that matter was complicated and, therefore, the appeal would be adjourned to the some other date. Letter of the counsel date 25.6.2020 has also been annexed as annexure no.5 which contains the communication of lawyer to the revisionist in that regard. The order of the Tribunal otherwise appears to have been passed essentially relying upon the remand report 6.3.2020 which has also been quoted in the order itself - The contention advanced on behalf of the revisionist that the order is vitiated for denial of reasonable opportunity of contest in the matter, therefore, is clearly substantiated. The matter stands remitted to the Tribunal for affording an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist and for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Opportunity of hearing denied to revisionist by the Tribunal.
Validity of relying on a remand report not served upon the revisionist.
Consistency of the Tribunal's order with established legal principles.

Analysis:
The revision was filed against an order by the Tribunal confirming the assessment order passed by the first appellate authority. The revisionist contended that they were denied a proper opportunity of hearing as their lawyer appeared on the scheduled date, but the Tribunal decided to adjourn the hearing for a later date without providing a detailed examination of records. Additionally, the revisionist claimed that the report of the Assessing Officer, which formed the basis of rejecting the appeal, was never served upon them. The revisionist challenged the orders on grounds of being ex-parte and inconsistent with established legal precedents.

Upon reviewing the materials on record, the court noted that the Tribunal's order was indeed ex-parte as recorded, with no appearance on behalf of the revisionist. However, the revisionist argued that the Tribunal had verbally adjourned the matter due to its complexity, which was supported by a communication from the lawyer to the revisionist. The court also observed that the remand report, crucial to the Tribunal's decision, had not been served upon the revisionist, which was deemed essential for fairness in the proceedings. As any material relied upon against the revisionist should have been served to them, the court found merit in the argument that the order was vitiated due to the denial of a reasonable opportunity to contest the matter.

In light of the above, the court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to afford a proper opportunity of hearing to the revisionist and ensuring that the copy of the remand report is served upon them before proceeding. The court decided the question of law in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of following due process and established legal principles in such proceedings.