2017 (2) TMI 1502 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court directs respondent to redo tax assessments, highlighting procedural errors, granting petitioner opportunity to raise objections.

The Court found the respondent unjustified in prematurely completing assessments under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act due to procedural ... Validity of assessment order - orders of assessment were passed by confirming the proposal in the show cause notices on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted any reply - years 2010-11 to 2015-16 - TNVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The postal acknowledgment produced by the petitioner shows that the communication sent by the petitioner was received by the office of the first respondent on 12.1.2017. If that is the case, the first respondent should have furnished documents sought for by the petitioner or at least given a reply stating as to for what reasons, the documents cannot be furnished. That apart, the assessment orders could not have been passed before the cut off date given in the show cause notices i.e 15 days from the date of receipt of the notices. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent was not justified in completing the assessments. This Court is not inclined to set aside the assessment orders because the assessment orders are, in fact, a verbatim reproduction of the show cause notices. Therefore, the petitioner can be directed to treat the impugned orders as show cause notices and submit their reply/objections - the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioner to treat the impugned orders as show cause notices. Issues involved:Challenge to assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the years 2010-11 to 2015-16 based on the grounds of not submitting a reply within the stipulated time period, violation of principles of natural justice, and the need for providing documents and reasonable time for objections.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged assessment orders for the years 2010-11 to 2015-16, contending that they had not received show cause notices in time. The petitioner received show cause notices on 22.12.2016 and responded on 08.1.2017, seeking documents and time for objections. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer could not have passed orders within the 15-day period provided in the notices. The petitioner presented an acknowledgment card showing their reply was received on 12.1.2017, highlighting a violation of natural justice in passing the assessment orders prematurely.The Additional Government Pleader raised doubts about the authenticity of the postal cover relied upon by the petitioner. However, the postal acknowledgment produced by the petitioner confirmed the receipt of their communication by the first respondent on 12.1.2017. The Court noted that the first respondent should have provided the requested documents or reasons for non-provision before passing the assessment orders within the 15-day limit from the receipt of notices. Consequently, the Court found the first respondent unjustified in completing the assessments prematurely.Despite the procedural irregularities, the Court decided not to set aside the assessment orders since they were essentially verbatim reproductions of the show cause notices. Instead, the petitioner was directed to treat the impugned orders as show cause notices and submit objections within ten days of receiving requested documents. The first respondent was instructed to provide copies of permissible documents and records, conduct a personal hearing, and redo the assessments within 15 days of receiving objections. Coercive action for tax recovery was prohibited until fresh assessment orders were issued, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and principles of natural justice.In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to treat the impugned orders as show cause notices, submit objections upon receiving requested documents, and allow for a fair reassessment process within the specified time frame. No costs were awarded, and the Court closed the related Writ Miscellaneous Petitions.