9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 261 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxViolation of principles of natural justice - Legality and validity of the revisional order - challenge on the ground that the revisional authority had granted seven days time to the petitioner to file objection to the notice proposing revision but without exhaustion of the aforesaid period, the revisional order has been passed - HELD THAT - When the 1st respondent had granted seven days time to the petitioner to submit written objection on the proposed revision of assessment, he ought to have waited till expiry of the aforesaid period. Without the aforesaid period being completed, 1st respondent hastily passed the order dated 16.07.2022 thereby pre-empting the petitioner from filing written objection. When the show cause notice itself clearly says that petitioner should file written statement within seven days of receipt of the notice, we fail to understand as to how 1 st respondent could have arrived at such a conclusion - We are not satisfied with such an explanation. However, in the present proceeding we are not inclined to delve into this aspect of the matter but in an appropriate case we may consider awarding exemplary costs if we are of the view that such mistakes are not bona fide. The revisional order dated 16.07.2022 is set aside - matter remanded back to the 1st respondent. Petitioner shall submit written objection to the show cause notice dated 08.07.2022 within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order whereafter 1st respondent shall pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
1. Challenge to revisional order for assessment period 2014-2018. 2. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Interpretation of time period for filing objection to show cause notice. 4. Corrective action for premature passing of revisional order. Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to revisional order for assessment period 2014-2018 The petitioner challenged the revisional order dated 16.07.2022 passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment period 2014-15 to 2017-18. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, engaged in real estate development and construction, contended that the revisional authority's act of granting only seven days to file objections to the notice proposing revision, followed by the premature passing of the revisional order, violated the principles of natural justice. Issue 2: Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice The petitioner argued that the revisional authority's decision to pass the order before the expiration of the seven-day objection filing period deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to present objections, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that such hasty action by the 1st respondent was unjust and prejudicial to their rights. Issue 3: Interpretation of time period for filing objection to show cause notice The Court noted that the show cause notice dated 08.07.2022 required the petitioner to file objections within seven days of receipt. However, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order on 16.07.2022 before the completion of the stipulated seven-day period. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specified timelines for filing objections and the need for procedural fairness in such matters. Issue 4: Corrective action for premature passing of revisional order The Court, upon finding that the 1st respondent prematurely passed the revisional order, set aside the order dated 16.07.2022 and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a written objection to the show cause notice within seven days from the receipt of the court's order. The 1st respondent was instructed to pass a fresh order in compliance with the law after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity to be heard. In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The Court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to timelines in administrative actions, emphasizing the need for proper application of principles of natural justice in such proceedings.
|
