Court quashes assessment order under TNVAT Act citing violations of natural justice principles.

The court quashed the impugned assessment order under the TNVAT Act, 2006, due to violations of natural justice principles. The petitioner's challenge, supported by a relevant judgment, highlighted the lack of notice and the incorrect liability attribution to the purchaser for the seller's actions. The court emphasized the need for a personal hearing and consideration of objections. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment with specific directives for due process, ultimately resulting in the disposal of the Writ Petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to impugned assessment order under TNVAT Act, 2006 without notice. Applicability of judgment regarding liability of purchaser for non-reporting of sales by seller. Availability of alternative appellate remedy. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to impugned assessment order without notice
The petitioner challenged the impugned assessment order passed by the second respondent under the TNVAT Act, 2006, alleging that it was done without issuing any notice. The petitioner contended that all purchases were reported to the second respondent and there was no suppression. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was not passed in accordance with the law, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition.

Issue 2: Applicability of judgment on liability of purchaser
The petitioner relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a similar case to argue that the dealer, as a purchaser, cannot be held liable for the non-reporting of sales by the seller. The judgment emphasized that action should be taken against the defaulting seller and not the purchaser. The court found the judgment applicable to the facts of the instant case, supporting the petitioner's contention that the impugned assessment order was not legally sound.

Issue 3: Availability of alternative appellate remedy
The Additional Government Pleader argued that there was an alternative appellate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 51 of the Act, making the Writ Petition not maintainable. However, the court found that the impugned assessment order violated the principles of natural justice, as highlighted by the petitioner. The court referred to a judgment emphasizing the mandatory nature of granting a personal hearing to the dealer/assessee, further supporting the petitioner's case.

Issue 4: Violation of principles of natural justice
The court concluded that the respondents had violated the principles of natural justice by not granting a personal hearing and considering all objections raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The court directed the second respondent to grant sufficient opportunity to the petitioner for raising objections and a right to a personal hearing, with a deadline of eight weeks for passing final orders.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, based on the detailed analysis of the issues involved in the legal judgment delivered by the Madras High Court.

---