2022 (5) TMI 641 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - reversal of proceedings concluded and order of assessment passed, under which, the input tax credit claimed or availed by the petitioner - HELD THAT - Even though the notice dated 10.01.2020, prior to the impugned order, is claimed to have been sent by ordinary post, it cannot be simply presumed that, automatically that would have been served on the petitioner when the petitioner stoutly deny such service of notice - Though the post office is the agent of the addressee, when these kind of matters, where, statutory notice is a must to be issued before passing the assessment order as that will have a financial and civil consequences on the noticee, strict compliance is to be expected. Therefore, the notice claimed to have been sent on 10.01.2020 by ordinary post cannot be treated as a proper service of notice in view of the specific denial made in this regard by the petitioner. Writ petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of Certiorari sought to quash an order of assessment.
2. Claim of reversal of input tax credit by the petitioner.
3. Dispute regarding the issuance and service of notice to the petitioner.
4. Compliance with statutory notice requirements before passing assessment orders.
5. Decision on setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for reconsideration.

The judgment involves a writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash an order of assessment passed against the petitioner, who is a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The assessment order dated 20.01.2022 sought to reverse the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner. During the hearing, the petitioner contended that no notice was issued before the impugned order, while the Additional Government Pleader argued that a notice dated 10.01.2020 was indeed served on the petitioner. The court directed verification of the notice's dispatch, and it was revealed that the notice was sent by ordinary post without acknowledgment. The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with statutory notice requirements, especially in matters with financial and civil consequences. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration.

The court noted the petitioner's denial of receiving the notice dated 10.01.2020, emphasizing that mere dispatch by ordinary post does not guarantee service, especially when the noticee disputes its receipt. Given the significant impact of assessment orders, the court stressed the necessity for proper service of statutory notices to ensure fairness and compliance with legal procedures. Acknowledging the petitioner's right to respond to the notice, the court allowed the petitioner to treat the impugned order as a notice and present a defense within two weeks for the respondent Revenue's consideration. Additionally, the court addressed the petitioner's concern regarding the attachment of the bank account, permitting the petitioner to seek redress by filing an application to the Assessing Authority for prompt consideration in line with the court's orders.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order due to the lack of proper service of the statutory notice, highlighting the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in assessment proceedings. By remitting the matter for reconsideration and allowing the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the notice, the court ensured procedural fairness and upheld the principles of natural justice. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of strict compliance with legal formalities, especially concerning statutory notices in matters with substantial implications for the parties involved.