2015 (8) TMI 538 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside order for lack of personal hearing, emphasizes natural justice principles. Petitioner granted new hearing.

The Court found that the respondent violated mandatory conditions under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 Act by not providing a ... Validity of order - opportunity of being heard no provided - Violation of principle of natural justice -Violation of mandatory conditions mentioned under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 - Held that:- Court finds no justification whatsoever to accept the impugned order, since the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been violation of mandatory conditions mentioned under Section 22(4) of the 2006 Act deserves acceptance, as there was no proper reply from the respondent. - Therefore, on the short ground that there has been violation of principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as provided under Section 22(4) of the 2006 Act, the impugned order dated 13.02.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Violation of mandatory conditions under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 ActAnalysis:1. The petitioner challenged an order dated 13.02.2015 issued by the respondent, alleging non-compliance with the mandatory conditions under Section 22(4) of the 2006 Act, which required providing a personal hearing before passing a final order.2. The petitioner contended that they had submitted their reply to the notice promptly, informing the respondent about filing monthly returns and claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) through 'e' filing. They argued that the respondent should have considered this information and granted a personal hearing before issuing the impugned order.3. The respondent, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), acknowledged the petitioner's submission but argued that the petitioner failed to provide necessary documents to support their claims. Consequently, the respondent proceeded to pass the order based on available information.4. The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the respondent had indeed violated the mandatory conditions outlined in Section 22(4) of the 2006 Act by not providing a personal hearing. The Court held that the absence of a proper response from the respondent justified setting aside the impugned order.5. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 13.02.2015 and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice by providing the petitioner with a personal hearing as required by law.6. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to afford the petitioner a personal hearing before making any further decisions. Additionally, the petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit all relevant documents supporting their claims regarding the filed returns for the specified periods. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.