Court emphasizes fair hearing in administrative actions, sets aside order under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act.

The court set aside the impugned order due to the lack of opportunity for personal hearing before passing the order under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act. Emphasizing the necessity of providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the court directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice, grant a fair hearing, and make a decision within eight weeks. The decision highlighted the significance of procedural fairness in administrative actions, without delving into the substantive merits of the case.

---

---

Issues:
Opportunity of being heard not provided before passing the impugned order under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner, a dealer under Central Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged an order passed by the respondent for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The impugned order was issued under Section 9(2) of CST Act and Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act. The main contention raised was the lack of opportunity for personal hearing before the order was passed.

The impugned order mentioned a notice dated 18.03.2019 sent to the writ petitioner, who allegedly did not respond. The counsel for the petitioner disputed the receipt of this notice and argued that the proposal mentioned in the order was dated 02.04.2019, making it impossible for the 18.03.2019 notice to be an opportunity for being heard. The court found merit in this argument, emphasizing the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per the proviso to Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act.

The proviso mandates that before taking action under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act, the dealer must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the impugned order should be set aside due to the absence of a personal hearing for the writ petitioner. Consequently, the court ordered the impugned order to be set aside solely on the ground of the lack of personal hearing and directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice, provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and pass orders within eight weeks.

In conclusion, the court's decision focused on the procedural aspect of not providing an opportunity for personal hearing to the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order under Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the case but emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for a fair decision-making process.

---