2014 (9) TMI 908 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court finds lack of natural justice in assessment orders, grants writ petitions, orders fresh consideration.

The court found that the first respondent's actions lacked adherence to principles of natural justice and fairness by not providing adequate opportunity ... Validity of revised orders of assessment - Opportunity of hearing not provided - Held that:- notice of hearing dated 09.04.2014, was sent fixing the date for personal hearing as 17.04.2014. Admittedly, a representative of the petitioner attended the personal hearing on 17.04.2014 and sought time till 23.04.2014. The first respondent could have either accepted or rejected the request. Instead, the first respondent passed orders on 09.05.2014. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be taken to have been passed after affording adequate opportunity as contemplated by the Division Bench in SRC Projects Private Limited, Salem Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai reported in [2008 (9) TMI 914 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Lack of adequate opportunity of hearing before passing revised assessment orders for assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012.Analysis:The petitioner raised concerns regarding the revised assessment orders passed by the first respondent for the mentioned assessment years without providing sufficient opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner submitted objections after the proposals for revision were issued, and a notice of hearing was sent, fixing the date for a personal hearing. During the hearing, the petitioner requested additional time to furnish details, but the first respondent passed the revised orders without addressing this request. The court noted that the first respondent did not consider the detailed objections filed by the petitioner, summarily rejecting them in two lines. The court referenced a previous Division Bench judgment to emphasize the importance of affording adequate opportunity before passing such orders.The court found that the actions of the first respondent did not align with the principles of natural justice and fairness. As a result, the court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh consideration. The court directed the first respondent to schedule a new date for a personal hearing, ensuring that the petitioner is informed in advance. The petitioner was instructed to appear in person on the hearing date, providing all relevant documents promptly. Following the hearing, the first respondent was mandated to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The court concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petitions without imposing any costs on the parties involved.