TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside assessment orders for 2007-14 citing lack of natural justice, remits for fresh assessment.</h1> The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment orders for the years 2007-08 to 2013-14 due to a violation of natural justice as the ... Validity of assessment order - Natural justice - The main grievance of the petitioner in these writ petitions is that the respondent has passed the impugned orders of assessment without considering the material supplied by the petitioner along with their reply to the notice - Held that: - the respondent has not intimated the petitioner about the date of personal hearing in pursuant to the objections filed by them. When such being the factual position, the only conclusion that can be arrived is that the respondent though stated that an opportunity of personal hearing would be given to the petitioner, has, infact, not afforded such opportunity to the petitioner by not informing the date of such hearing. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner was not given such personal hearing and consequently, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders of assessment suffers on the ground of violation of natural justice - impugned order set aside - matter is remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders of assessment - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to assessment orders for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14 based on lack of opportunity for personal hearing and violation of principles of natural justice.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, challenged assessment orders for various years, alleging that the respondent did not consider materials provided and did not offer a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that despite notices indicating a right to personal hearing, no specific date was provided for such hearing. The petitioner relied on Circular No.7/2014, arguing that a personal hearing should be afforded regardless of request. The respondent, however, argued that the petitioner had the option for a personal hearing but did not exercise it.The Court noted that the notices did mention the opportunity for a personal hearing but failed to specify a date for it. Referring to the Circular, which emphasizes the importance of personal hearings and passing orders only after providing a reasonable opportunity to dealers, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not actually given a personal hearing. Consequently, the Court found a violation of natural justice and set aside the assessment orders solely on that ground, without delving into other contentions raised by the parties.Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment orders and remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh assessment orders after affording the petitioner a proper opportunity for a personal hearing with a specified date. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders within eight weeks from the date of the Court's order. The Court's decision was based on the violation of natural justice, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed in light of the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
