2019 (7) TMI 246 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside orders for lack of personal hearing, schedules new hearing, emphasizes fairness in assessment process.

The court set aside the impugned orders due to the lack of a granted personal hearing for the writ petitioner. A new personal hearing was scheduled, with ... Validity of revised assessment order - section 27 of TNVAT Act - it is the specific and emphatic case of learned counsel for writ petitioner that no personal hearing has been granted, though the writ petitioner asked for the same - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders do not mention that an opportunity of personal hearing was given and the writ petitioner has not availed the same. As the impugned orders are silent on the same, the same cannot be improved by way of counter affidavit. There is no other material before this Court to demonstrate that notice regarding personal hearing has been sent to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner has not availed the same. The Circular No.7/2014 (BB1/3589/2014) dated 03.02.2014 which is regarding personal hearing which says in a recommendatory tone that personal hearing shall invariably be afforded to dealers irrespective of whether they are opt for the same or not as respondent in its discretion has considered it necessary to give personal hearing (obviously owing to facts of this case) to the writ petitioner, it is a fit case to remit the matter. Impugned order are set aside, solely on the ground that personal hearing not been granted - The writ petitioner, on instructions, undertakes to avail the personal hearing on the aforesaid date, time and venue and reiterate the objections already sent without expanding the scope of the matter any further - petition disposed off. Issues:- Deduction of taxes at source (TDS) by the writ petitioner's customers- Deemed sale value of goods purchased from other States- Granting of personal hearing to the writ petitionerAnalysis:1. Deduction of taxes at source (TDS): The central theme in the seven writ petitions revolves around the TDS issue related to payments made by the writ petitioner's customers for work contracts. The assessment years in question range from 2009-2010 to 2015-2016. The Revenue contends that TDS was not deducted as required. However, the court does not delve into the merits of this issue in the current order.2. Deemed sale value of goods: Another issue raised is the deemed sale value of goods purchased from other States, which the Revenue claims has not been reported, leading to unpaid taxes. Similar to the TDS matter, the court refrains from examining this issue on its merits in the present order.3. Granting of personal hearing: The critical point for consideration is whether the writ petitioner was granted a personal hearing. The impugned orders are revised assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The writ petitioner asserts that despite requesting a personal hearing, none was provided. The Revenue, on the other hand, states that a notice for personal hearing was issued and acknowledged by the writ petitioner, who allegedly failed to attend. However, the court finds discrepancies and lack of clarity regarding the actual communication of the personal hearing opportunity to the writ petitioner.4. Legal Circular on Personal Hearing: The court refers to Circular No.7/2014, which mandates that personal hearing should be afforded to dealers irrespective of their choice. Considering the ambiguity surrounding the personal hearing in this case, the court deems it appropriate to remit the matter for a proper hearing.5. Court Order: Consequently, the court sets aside the impugned orders solely due to the lack of a granted personal hearing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues. A new personal hearing is scheduled, and the writ petitioner is required to attend and reiterate objections previously raised. Failure to attend will result in the revival of the impugned orders, while attendance will prompt the Revenue to reevaluate and pass revised assessment orders within 12 weeks.6. Conclusion: The court disposes of all seven writ petitions with the outlined directions, emphasizing the importance of a fair personal hearing in the assessment process. No costs are awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed as a result of this judgment.