2021 (5) TMI 32 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - contention of the petitioner is that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice in view of the infraction of what has been laid down in Rule 14(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 - HELD THAT - The contention of the petitioner's counsel is sustained. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority. A copy of the written statement filed by the departmental representative will be served on the appellant/petitioner herein and thereafter, the appellate authority shall pass orders afresh in accordance with law. When the matter was taken up today, the learned Special Government Pleader produced a copy of the letter dated 24.03.2021 addressed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration (A1) Department. It is stated that the Secretary to Government had discussed with the Chairman of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in this regard. It was noted that it is necessary to amend the sub-regulations (2) and (3) of Regulation 9 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2011 to effect distribution of work and confer territorial jurisdiction - The Principal Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai states that after getting necessary proposal from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and after obtaining orders from the Government in consultation with the advisory departments of Government, necessary orders will be issued by the Government. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice regarding non-service of written statement to the appellant.
2. Overload of cases in Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the need for redistribution of work.

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice regarding non-service of written statement to the appellant

The petitioner, an assessee registered with the third respondent, challenged an adverse order of assessment for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner filed declaration forms but was still called upon to pay tax and penalty. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority relied on a written statement by the departmental representative, which was never served on the appellant. The petitioner argued a violation of Rule 14(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, which mandates the Departmental Representative to file a written statement before the appellant can reply. The court agreed with the petitioner's counsel, noting the absence of the written statement served on the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh orders in compliance with the law.

Issue 2: Overload of cases in Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the need for redistribution of work

During the proceedings, the court highlighted the excessive workload before the Madurai Bench of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, with 3165 pending cases. In contrast, the Coimbatore Bench had only 910 pending cases, indicating a need for redistribution of work. The court suggested transferring appeals from certain revenue districts to the Coimbatore Bench to reduce the Madurai Bench's workload. However, this transfer would require conferring territorial jurisdiction to the Coimbatore Bench and appointing a full-time judicial member. Additionally, the infrastructural facilities at the Coimbatore Bench needed upgrading to facilitate video conferencing for counsel based in Madurai and Chennai, reducing litigants' expenses. The court directed the Principal Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, to expedite the necessary amendments to the regulations for work distribution and territorial jurisdiction in the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the violation of natural justice principles in not serving the written statement to the appellant, leading to the quashing of the impugned order. Additionally, the court recognized the need for redistributing work in the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to alleviate the excessive workload in certain benches, emphasizing the importance of infrastructural upgrades and jurisdictional adjustments for efficient case management.