2019 (1) TMI 1218 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessing Officer violated natural justice by not providing personal hearing, assessment orders set aside

M/s. Stanley Wood Works Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

The court found that the Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice by not providing a personal hearing to the petitioner before issuing ... Principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - the Assessing Officer, apart from not considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notices of proposal, has also failed to give an opportunity of personal hearing, when he has chosen to impose penalty - Held that:- The notices issued to the petitioner on 27.09.2018 has only indicated that the petitioner can appear before the Assessing Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notices. This Court has already found that such course of providing an opportunity of personal hearing is not an effective personal hearing, since such hearing should be done only after receipt of the reply. Thus, the Assessing Officer has failed to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, after considering the replies already filed by the petitioner and also after providing an opportunity of personal hearing - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment orders for assessment years 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 by not providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the assessment orders for the mentioned assessment years, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice due to the Assessing Officer not considering the petitioner's replies to the notices of proposal and failing to provide a personal hearing before imposing penalties. The petitioner argued that the replies were sent on 22.10.2018, received by the Assessing Officer on 24.10.2018, but the assessment orders were already passed on 23.10.2018 without a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that the orders were sent by post on 29.10.2018, indicating they were likely passed after receiving the reply. The Government Advocate acknowledged the lack of a personal hearing but argued that due to the delayed replies, the Assessing Officer had to proceed with the assessment.The court noted that the petitioner promptly sent replies via speed post on 22.10.2018, which were received by the Assessing Officer on 24.10.2018. Despite this, the assessment orders were issued on 23.10.2018, immediately after the 15-day period, without a personal hearing. The court emphasized that since penalties were imposed, a personal hearing should have been granted, which was not provided in this case. The notices only allowed the petitioner to appear within 15 days, which the court deemed insufficient for an effective personal hearing. Consequently, the court found that the Assessing Officer failed to offer a personal hearing, leading to the impugned orders being set aside.As a result of the above findings, the court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment orders and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the assessment after reviewing the petitioner's replies and providing a proper opportunity for a personal hearing within eight weeks from the date of the court's order. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.