2020 (12) TMI 277 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cancellation of assessments made by the Commercial Tax Officer - Assessment Circle for the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1999 - HELD THAT - On a bare perusal of the impugned orders, it is apparent on the face of the record that there has not been any reference to the order dated 20.02.2012 in W.A. Nos. 2089 to 2091 of 2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the contention relating to the limitation raised by the Petitioner has not even been considered. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the impugned orders, which are set aside and the matters are remitted for fresh consideration. The Petitioner shall raise all their objections in writing by a comprehensive reply which shall be submitted by 31.12.2020. The Second Respondent shall thereafter afford full opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner, deal with each of the objections raised including the question of limitation, and pass reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law following the prescribed procedure in consonance with the principles of natural justice and communicate the decision taken to the Petitioner on or before 31.03.2021 under written acknowledgment. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of assessments under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1999 (TNGST Act) for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99.
Failure to consider objections regarding limitation to re-open proceedings.
Sustainability of impugned orders without reference to previous court order.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the Petitioner challenged the cancellation of assessments made under the TNGST Act for specific years. Initially, the Writ Petitions were dismissed, but a subsequent order granted the Respondents time to consider objections and pass appropriate orders. The Petitioner contended that the Second Respondent proceeded hastily to pass an order without considering their objections regarding the limitation to re-open proceedings. The Petitioner relied on previous court decisions to support their argument.

Upon examination, the court found that the impugned orders did not reference the previous court order and failed to consider the Petitioner's contentions regarding the limitation issue. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters for fresh consideration. The court directed the Petitioner to submit comprehensive objections in writing by a specified date and mandated the Second Respondent to provide a personal hearing, address all objections, including the limitation issue, and pass reasoned orders in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice by a specified deadline.

In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were ordered based on the terms outlined in the judgment. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed without any costs being imposed.