2019 (6) TMI 622 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court of Madras: Writ Petitions on Tax Assessment Disposed with Emphasis on Natural Justice

The High Court of Madras disposed of seven writ petitions challenging assessment proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The court ... Principles of Natural Justice (NJP) - though time was sought for and several opportunities were given for filing objections, the same has not been effectively utilized by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- After the writ petitions were heard out for some time, as much as the writ petitions were taken up for disposal by consent, it was agreed by both counsel that an order can be passed by consent to the effect that the petitioner Assessee will be given an opportunity to submit all the records within a prescribed time frame subject to the petitioner paying 15% of the disputed tax (obviously excluding penalty) as per the amount set out in the respective impugned orders. The impugned order of assessment in each of these writ petitions are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the sole respondent for assessment afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:- Assessment proceedings under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 challenged on grounds of natural justice violation.- Change of address by the petitioner leading to communication issues.- Consent order for remand and fresh assessment with conditions.Issue 1: Assessment Proceedings and Natural Justice ViolationThe writ petitions challenged seven assessment proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Enforcement Wing officials conducted a surprise inspection, leading to assessment proceedings where the petitioner expressed difficulty in filing detailed objections promptly. The impugned orders were passed despite opportunities given for filing objections. The petitioner contended a violation of principles of natural justice (NJP) as a pivotal ground for challenging the assessment orders. However, the court noted that the petitioner had changed addresses without informing the respondent, which could impact the NJP argument. Citing cases like Satyawati Tandon and K.C. Mathew, the court observed that while the NJP violation plea was left open, complete adherence to NJP was evident in serving the impugned orders at the new address provided by the petitioner.Issue 2: Change of Address and Communication ChallengesThe petitioner had changed addresses in the last two years without immediate communication to the Department. This change led to confusion regarding the address on record and the address in the writ petition. Despite the petitioner eventually providing the new address in the objections sent to the respondent, the court highlighted the importance of timely communication of address changes to avoid procedural complications. The court acknowledged the difficulty faced by the petitioner in establishing a solid NJP violation case due to the address discrepancy.Issue 3: Consent Order for Remand and Fresh AssessmentAfter hearing the writ petitions, both parties consented to a specific order. The court ordered the setting aside of the impugned assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh assessment. The petitioner was directed to deposit 15% of the disputed tax amount within a week, excluding penalties, as a condition for the fresh assessment. Failure to make this deposit would automatically revive the impugned orders. The respondent was instructed to receive all documents from the petitioner within a specified timeframe for the fresh assessment process, to be completed within eight weeks. The court addressed the issue of the petitioner's attached bank account, stating that the respondent could appropriate the required amount for the deposit, with any shortfall to be covered by the petitioner within the given timeframe.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras disposed of the seven writ petitions with a common order, focusing on addressing the challenges related to the assessment proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to natural justice principles, timely communication of address changes, and the procedural steps involved in remanding the matter for a fresh assessment based on the consent order agreed upon by both parties.