2019 (12) TMI 882 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court orders reassessment with personal hearing for petitioner, stressing importance of procedural fairness.

M/s. Sanmina -SCI India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)

The court found merit in the petitioner's claim that they were not granted a proper personal hearing opportunity before the assessment orders were passed, ... Principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing not provided - validity of assessment order - main grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the impugned orders were passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT:- Though counter affidavit filed by the respondent specifically states that the notice of personal hearing dated 09.06.2018 was served on the petitioner’s representative on 12.06.2018, no such reference is made in the impugned orders at any place. In fact the impugned orders referred only the notice of proposal and the dealers objections, without making any reference to the notice of personal hearing. Therefore, it is evident that the contention of the petitioner that no such notice was served on them has some force and consequently, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to give such opportunity and pass fresh orders of assessment. Since this Court finds that no such notice seems to have been issued, as there is no reference to that effect in the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be remitted back to the Assessing Office for passing fresh orders of assessment. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenging assessment orders without personal hearing opportunity.Analysis:The writ petitions challenged assessment orders for various assessment years, alleging lack of personal hearing opportunity. The Assessing Officer issued notices of proposal post VAT Audit Inspection, to which the petitioner responded. However, the petitioner contended that assessment orders were passed without granting them a personal hearing, despite the imposition of a penalty. The petitioner claimed that no personal hearing notice was issued, while the respondent argued otherwise, stating that a notice was served fixing a date for personal hearing. The key issue revolved around whether the petitioner was indeed offered a personal hearing opportunity. The counter affidavit from the respondent mentioned serving a notice for personal hearing, but the impugned orders did not reflect this. As a result, the court found merit in the petitioner's claim and decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment orders after providing a proper personal hearing opportunity.The court noted that the Revenue did not contest the petitioner's entitlement to a personal hearing and acknowledged that a notice was issued for the same, contrary to the petitioner's assertions. However, as the impugned orders did not reference the notice of personal hearing, the court concluded that the matter needed to be sent back to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation. The court emphasized the importance of personal hearing in such cases and directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice for personal hearing to the petitioner. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the assessment merits, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of non-providing of personal hearing. The Assessing Officer was instructed to complete the reassessment process within eight weeks from the date of the court order, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and principles of natural justice. The writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh assessment with a proper opportunity for personal hearing.