2021 (10) TMI 332 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court quashes tax revision order for lack of personal hearing, stresses procedural fairness

M/s. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Kodambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai

The High Court of Madras set aside the revision/re-assessment order dated 23.02.2021 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, due to the absence of ... Principles of natural justice - objections raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer has been considered or not - non-verification of Form WW - HELD THAT:- Though personal hearing for a revisional order under Section 27 of TNVAT Act is not statutorily imperative vide STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION (CC) – SBIOA VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2019 (9) TMI 698 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], in the case on hand, as Hon'ble single Judge vide earlier order has thought it fit to direct the respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing before making the revisional order respondent ought to have given a personal hearing to writ petitioner before making the impugned order. On instructions, learned Revenue counsel submits that the records does not demonstrate that the personal hearing was given qua impugned order. Learned counsel for writ petitioner also pitches his case on this point. Owing to the earlier order made by another Hon'ble single Judge, it would put to rest all controversies if the impugned order is done de novo i.e., afresh after giving a personal hearing. Impugned order is set aside solely on the ground that personal hearing has not been given - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Validity of the revision/re-assessment order dated 23.02.2021 under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.2. Requirement of personal hearing before making a revisional order.3. Compliance with earlier judicial directives regarding personal hearing.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of the revision/re-assessment orderThe judgment concerns a revisional order dated 23.02.2021 made under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which was challenged in a writ petition. The court highlighted that a previous order dated 22.07.2019 had remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of considering objections raised by the petitioner. The court set aside the impugned order solely due to the lack of a personal hearing, as directed in the earlier order, and ordered a redo of the revision/re-assessment exercise.Issue 2: Requirement of personal hearingThe court referenced an earlier order where it was held that personal hearing for a revisional order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act is not statutorily imperative. However, in this case, the court emphasized the importance of providing a personal hearing as directed in the previous order. The court found that the impugned order lacked evidence of a personal hearing, leading to the decision to set it aside and order a fresh revision/re-assessment exercise after a personal hearing.Issue 3: Compliance with judicial directivesThe court acknowledged the directive in the earlier order by another single judge, which emphasized the necessity of a personal hearing before making a revisional order. Despite the respondent's failure to provide a personal hearing, the court ordered a fresh revision/re-assessment exercise to be conducted after a personal hearing, in compliance with the judicial directive. This decision aimed to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to previous court orders.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras set aside the revision/re-assessment order dated 23.02.2021 due to the absence of a personal hearing, as directed in an earlier order. The court ordered a redo of the revision/re-assessment exercise after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with judicial directives.