9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 904 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of Natural Justice - petitioner having sent replies to the pre-revision assessment notices sent by the second respondent for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the same has not been considered by the second respondent in the impugned assessment orders - HELD THAT - It is settled law that personal hearing is mandatory - Hence, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the non-consideration of the replies sent by the petitioner for the revision of assessment notices sent by the second respondent and for not affording personal hearing to the petitioner in the assessment proceedings, the second respondent has violated the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned assessment orders for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to raise all objections available to him under law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenging assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 based on non-consideration of replies and lack of personal hearing. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the assessment orders dated 15.10.2018, alleging that despite sending replies to pre-revision assessment notices, the second respondent did not consider them and did not provide a personal hearing. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the replies sent on 30.12.2015 and 02.01.2016, as well as notices from the second respondent indicating non-receipt of replies. It was argued that the impugned assessment orders did not take into account the replies and failed to provide a personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The respondents, through the Special Government Pleader, contended that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to submit his objections but failed to do so. They claimed that the replies mentioned by the petitioner were never received. The respondents argued that the assessment orders were based on available records and that there was no violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner provided evidence of the delivery receipt acknowledging the receipt of the reply letter by the Assistant Commissioner. The court noted that the petitioner had sent replies to the revision of assessment notices, and since there was no evidence to the contrary from the respondents, the court accepted the petitioner's contentions. It emphasized that the benefit of doubt should be given to the dealer (Assessee). The court observed that personal hearing is mandatory and found that the second respondent violated the principles of natural justice by not considering the replies and failing to provide a personal hearing. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration, with directions to afford the petitioner sufficient opportunity for objections and a right to personal hearing within twelve weeks. In conclusion, the court disposed of the Writ Petitions with no costs, directing the second respondent to reevaluate the assessment orders in compliance with the law and principles of natural justice.
|
