Court quashes assessment order for VAT Act violation, orders reconsideration with due process

The Court quashed the assessment order under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, due to notices being sent to the wrong address, denying the petitioner a personal hearing, and violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the respondent for reconsideration, with directions to afford the petitioner an opportunity to raise objections, conduct a personal hearing, and conclude the proceedings within eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging assessment order under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 due to incorrect address of notice and violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged the assessment order dated 14.03.2016, claiming that the pre-assessment notice and assessment order were sent to the wrong address of the petitioner's son instead of the registered address. The petitioner argued that this violated the principles of natural justice as he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to raise objections or given a personal hearing. The petitioner also disputed liability for tax and penalty as per the assessment order, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel highlighted the incorrect address issue, citing Rule 19(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, which mandates sending notices to the registered address of the dealer. The counsel emphasized that the lack of personal hearing and failure to send notices to the correct address infringed on the petitioner's rights. Reference was made to a previous judgment where the right to a personal hearing for the assessee was deemed mandatory, even in the absence of a response from the assessee.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader contended that despite the notice being received, the petitioner did not respond or present their case before the respondent. It was argued that the petitioner should have pursued alternative remedies under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court acknowledged that the notices were indeed sent to the wrong address, and the petitioner had not received them due to extenuating circumstances, such as the son's hospitalization following an accident. The Court also noted the absence of a personal hearing for the petitioner before the assessment order was passed. Citing a previous Division Bench judgment, it held that denying the petitioner a personal hearing amounted to a breach of natural justice, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the right to a personal hearing even if objections were not filed.

Consequently, the Court quashed the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to raise objections, grant a personal hearing, and dispose of the proceedings within eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

---