TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Tax Law Provisions: Emphasis on Fairness and Personal Hearing</h1> <h3>Mahavir Multi Media Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)</h3> Mahavir Multi Media Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) - [2019] 69 G S.T.R. 271 (Mad) Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act).2. Validity of revised assessment orders issued by the respondent.3. Consideration of multiple revised assessments for the same financial year.4. Lack of mention of previous notices and replies in subsequent assessment orders.5. Need for personal hearing and opportunity to present objections.Analysis:Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of provisions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The writ petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, was engaged in the business of computer peripherals, accessories, and Closed Circuit Televisions (CCTVs) during the financial year 2014-2015.Issue 2: The validity of the revised assessment orders issued by the respondent is another key point of contention. The respondent passed a revised assessment order on 4.8.2017, followed by another revised assessment order on 30.10.2018, both pertaining to the same financial year. The writ petitioner contested the second revised assessment order, referred to as the 'impugned order,' on the grounds that it revisited issues already concluded in the first revised assessment order.Issue 3: The consideration of multiple revised assessments for the same financial year raises questions about procedural fairness and the necessity of revisiting issues that have already been addressed. While the respondent argued that there is no restriction on the number of revised assessments under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, the writ petitioner highlighted the potential complexities and challenges arising from revising the same issue multiple times.Issue 4: A crucial aspect of the case is the lack of mention of previous notices and replies in subsequent assessment orders. The writ petitioner pointed out discrepancies in how the first and second revised assessment orders were passed, noting that different officers were involved in each revision. This discrepancy raised concerns about procedural irregularities and the need for consistency in decision-making.Issue 5: The need for a personal hearing and an opportunity to present objections emerged as a significant aspect of the case. The Court determined that a personal hearing was essential to address the discrepancies and provide the writ petitioner with a fair chance to present their case. The Court set aside the impugned order solely for the purpose of facilitating a personal hearing, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and due process.In conclusion, the Court directed a personal hearing on a specified date, requiring the writ petitioner to present all relevant documents and issues for consideration. The Court emphasized that the order to set aside the impugned order was not based on merits, and the decision did not express any opinion on the substance of the case. The case was disposed of with directions for a fresh revised assessment order to be issued after the personal hearing, ensuring transparency and procedural fairness in the assessment process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
