2018 (10) TMI 882 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside assessment orders under Tamil Nadu VAT Act for lack of hearing, remands for reevaluation.

Tvl. Nagalakshmi Stores Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) -II

The court set aside all impugned assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for various assessment years due to the assessing ... Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - it is alleged that the 2nd respondent, without furnishing the relevant documents and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, has passed the impugned orders - principles of Natural justice - Held that:- Though the petitioner has sought for a copy of the web report, the 2nd respondent, without furnishing the same and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, has passed the impugned orders merely stating that the dealer has received notice, but has not filed any reply till date - There is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders. All the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent are set aside and all the matters are remanded back to the file of the 2nd respondent - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenging revised assessment orders under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for multiple assessment years. Denial of opportunity of personal hearing by the assessing authority.Analysis:The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging revised assessment orders passed by the 2nd respondent for various assessment years. The petitioner, an assessee under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, received pre-revision notices highlighting discrepancies in the Web report. The petitioner responded, stating that the alleged purchases were made in his wife's concern, Tvl.Sri Nagalakshmi Traders. However, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned orders without providing relevant documents or a personal hearing, leading to the petitioner challenging the orders in court.The court noted that pre-revision notices were issued, and the petitioner had requested a copy of the web report, clarifying the purchases were made in his wife's concern. Despite this, the 2nd respondent confirmed the proposals without considering the petitioner's response or providing a personal hearing. The court emphasized that as per circulars, personal hearing must be given, even if not requested. Referring to a previous decision, the court reiterated that the failure to submit objections does not justify denying the opportunity of a personal hearing to the assessee.In light of the above, the court set aside all impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was directed to provide relevant documents to the petitioner within a week, followed by the petitioner submitting objections within two weeks. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent was instructed to conduct a personal hearing and pass reasoned orders within two weeks. The court clarified that if the petitioner fails to cooperate, appropriate orders can be passed based on available records. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.