9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 167 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of natural justice - petitioner has not been given an opportunity to show-cause, much less a reasonable opportunity to show-cause before making of the impugned order - Section 27 of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - The expression 'a reasonable opportunity to show cause' occurring in proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act, has been explained by this Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION (CC) SBIOA VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) 2019 (9) TMI 698 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . This Court is informed that this order has not been reported in any law journal. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to give the writ petition number and date of the order for convenience of all concerned. It may not be necessary to delve further into State Bank of India officers case as that was a case where 'reasonable opportunity to show cause' occurring in the common proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act and the expression 'reasonable opportunity of being heard' occurring in the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 22 of TNVAT Act were considered, distinguished and explained. That may not be of great significance in the case on hand as the simple point urged by learned counsel for writ petitioner is, impugned order has been made without giving opportunity to show-cause, much less a reasonable opportunity to show-cause. A careful perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that no prior notice has been issued and obviously, no opportunity has been given to the writ petitioner. On instructions, learned Revenue counsel submits that no notice was issued to the writ petitioner prior to the impugned order. The impugned order being order is set aside solely on the ground that the writ petitioner has not been given an opportunity to show-cause, much less a reasonable opportunity to show-cause before the impugned order was made - this Court (in this order) has not expressed any opinion or view on the merits of the matter - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Impugned order made under TNVAT Act without mentioning the provision of law. 2. Lack of opportunity to show-cause before making the impugned order. 3. Interpretation of the common proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of TNVAT Act. 4. Setting aside the impugned order and directing a de novo revision process. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case revolves around the impugned order made under the TNVAT Act without specifying the provision of law. The court notes a common occurrence where orders lack clarity on the legal basis. The impugned order, subject to revision under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, was challenged due to this ambiguity, making the matter complex. 2. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was issued under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act without granting an opportunity to show-cause. The respondent, represented by the State counsel, acknowledged that the order was indeed made under sub-section (1) of Section 27. The court emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to show-cause before passing such orders. 3. The interpretation of the common proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of the TNVAT Act was crucial in this judgment. The court referred to a previous case to explain the concept of "a reasonable opportunity to show cause." It was highlighted that the essence of this provision was violated in the present case, as the petitioner was not given any prior notice or opportunity to present their case. 4. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order solely on the grounds of the lack of opportunity given to the petitioner. It was clarified that this decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The respondent was directed to conduct a revision process under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act afresh, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to show-cause. The court set a timeline for this process to be completed promptly. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the outlined directives, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for parties to present their case in legal proceedings.
|
