2021 (12) TMI 1187 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - CST assessment Orders for the Financial Year 2016-17 and Financial Year 2017-18 - opportunity of personal hearing was not provided to the petitioner - HELD THAT - The court does not find the present case to be one of such nature where the High Court should straightaway interfere, as there is an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of the court, the petitioner should first avail the statutory remedy and whatever points have been argued before this Court can very well be argued and appreciated before the Appellate Authority. There has been lapse on the part of the petitioner which now is sought to be explained as a mistake and error committed by the petitioner. Once the petitioner itself admits that there were lapses and error on its part, it cannot be termed that there has been gross miscarriage of justice by the authorities requiring interference by the High Court at the very first instance. Moreover, at the cost of repetition, all the points available to the petitioner which have also been argued before the Court can very well to be raised and appreciated by the Appellate Authority. The writ petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no.3/Appellate Authority against the order impugned.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks relief against CST assessment orders for 2016-17 and 2017-18, alleging lack of consideration of submitted documents, absence of personal hearing, and violation of constitutional rights.

Analysis:
1. Relief Sought by Petitioner:
The petitioner, a company dealing in various sectors, challenged CST assessment orders for 2016-17 and 2017-18. Allegations include passing orders without considering submitted documents, lack of personal hearing, and violation of constitutional rights.

2. Filing of Returns and Assessment Order:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under VAT and CST Acts, filed returns for the relevant years and later revised them. No additional tax was paid as per the revised returns, leading to a dispute with the authorities resulting in an assessment order dated 30.05.2020.

3. Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's counsel argued that despite sending partial bill of entries and requesting time extension due to the global pandemic, the impugned order was passed without considering these submissions or providing a personal hearing, warranting interference by the Court.

4. Precedents and Legal Arguments:
Citing precedents from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Courts, the petitioner's counsel highlighted the importance of physical notice delivery and the need for fair consideration of submissions in similar cases, emphasizing the impact of the pandemic on legal proceedings.

5. Government's Response and Court's Decision:
The Assistant Government Pleader contended that notice through email was valid as per VAT Rules. The Court, while acknowledging the statutory appeal remedy available to the petitioner, emphasized the need for utilizing this remedy before approaching the High Court directly.

6. Disposition and Liberty Granted:
The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to appeal before the Appellate Authority within three weeks. The Court extended indulgence in filing the appeal due to limitations related to Covid-19 and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits, allowing the petitioner to present all contentions.

7. Conclusion:
The judgment underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking direct intervention from the High Court. It emphasizes the need for fair consideration of submissions and provides the petitioner with an opportunity to appeal before the Appellate Authority, ensuring a reasoned order and personal hearing.