2011 (3) TMI 1543 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court invalidates authorities' notices, emphasizes due process, petitioner's right to be heard

The court held in favor of the petitioner, declaring the impugned clarification and notices issued by the authorities as invalid. The court directed the ... - Issues:Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff - Entry 84.18 vs. Entry 84.19Validity of impugned clarification and notices issued by authoritiesApplicability of concessional rate of tax for sales covered by form XVIIPower of the first respondent to issue clarifications under section 28A of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax ActAnalysis:The petitioner challenged the impugned clarification and notices issued by the authorities, arguing they were arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner contended that the goods should be classified under Tariff entry 84.19, not 84.18 as stated in the clarification. The counsel highlighted that the goods were shown under entry 84.19 in the license issued by Central Excise authorities. The petitioner also raised concerns about the denial of form XVII concession for the sale of items. The first respondent's clarification for entry 84.18, despite the petitioner's request for clarification on entry 84.19, was questioned.The second respondent justified the revision notices issued based on the impugned clarification, proposing revisions and disallowing concessional tax rates for certain years. The petitioner, aggrieved by the revision notices, filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The second respondent relied on Section 28A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, empowering the first respondent to issue clarifications binding on all under the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.The court observed that no notice was given to the petitioner before the impugned clarification was issued, rendering it invalid. The court directed the second respondent to pass appropriate assessment orders for the goods, allowing the petitioner to present objections and be heard. The writ petitions were granted in favor of the petitioner, with no costs imposed. The judgment emphasized the importance of due process and the right to be heard before decisions affecting parties are made, ensuring fairness and adherence to the law.