2021 (7) TMI 691 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court grants writ petition due to lack of personal hearing for business entity 'P.C. Furniture Land'

Tvl. P.C. Furniture Land Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), The State Tax Officer

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order in TIN No.33084801208/2013-14 due to the lack of providing a personal hearing to the ... Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - reassessment afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing - deemed assessment order by accepting the total turnover reported through the returns as required under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act - HELD THAT:- Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, provides for reasonable opportunity, which includes the personal hearing under Section 27(4) of the Act, which is mandatory. However, the petitioner has not been given personal hearing and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter needs consideration afresh. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity including the personal hearing as contemplated under Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Quashing of impugned proceedings in TIN No.33084801208/2013-14 for violating Principles of Natural Justice and redoing assessment after providing personal hearing.Analysis:The Writ Petition was filed to challenge the impugned proceedings in TIN No.33084801208/2013-14, alleging violations of the Principles of Natural Justice. The petitioner sought to redo the assessment after being provided with an opportunity for personal hearing. The petitioner, a business entity named 'P.C. Furniture Land,' regularly filed returns under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, reporting all transactions and paying taxes. During the assessment year 2013-14, a revised assessment order was passed based on an inspection by the Enforcement Wing Officials. The petitioner appealed the order, which was partially allowed, remanding the matter back to the second respondent. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a notice, to which the petitioner responded, objecting to the levy of tax on discounts received. Despite this, the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of facts, leading to the filing of the writ petition.The counsel for the petitioner argued that the First Appellate Authority had set aside the Assessing Officer's order regarding the disputed turnover, remanding the matter for fresh disposal. However, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain their case before the impugned order was passed, highlighting a procedural flaw. The Special Government Pleader representing the respondents acknowledged the lack of personal hearing and assured that if the order was set aside and remanded, the petitioner would be granted a personal hearing for fresh consideration.The Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the evidence, noted that Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, mandates providing a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, which was not afforded to the petitioner in this case. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned order should be set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, ensuring compliance with the legal requirement of a personal hearing under Section 27(4) of the Act. The second respondent was directed to reevaluate the case, pass appropriate orders within eight weeks, and no costs were imposed. As a result, the writ petition was allowed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.