2021 (11) TMI 944 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Madras HC quashes VAT revisional orders for not considering objections, emphasizes fair opportunity for dealers

M/s. Jeyakrishna Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax), The Government of Tamil Nadu

The Madras High Court set aside eight impugned revisional orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as they failed to consider the objections ... Validity of pre-revision notices issued - writ petitioner-dealer sent detailed replies to the pre-revision notices but the impugned orders have been made without considering the objections - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is a statutory requirement is to give a reasonable opportunity to show cause and that the opportunity has been so given means the response of the dealer has to necessarily be considered while making a revisional order. It may or it may not have been considered by the first respondent but the impugned orders do not say anything about the objections. In other words, there is nothing in the impugned orders to demonstrate that the replies have been considered much less have they been dealt with - impugned orders are set aside on the short point that the objections of the writ petitioner-dealer being objections/replies to pre-revision notices have not been considered. Petition disposed off. Issues:- Challenge to revisional orders made under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.- Failure to consider objections/response to pre-revision notices in the impugned orders.Analysis:The judgment by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Sundar of the Madras High Court deals with eight main writ petitions challenging revisional orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Enforcement Wing Officers audited the business of the writ petitioner, leading to the issuance of pre-revision notices. The writ petitioner responded with detailed objections to these notices, but the impugned orders were made without considering these objections. The court noted that the law requires a reasonable opportunity for the dealer to show cause before a revisional order is made under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. It emphasized that the response of the dealer must be considered in making such orders. The impugned orders in this case did not address or demonstrate any consideration of the objections raised by the writ petitioner.The court highlighted that the statutory provision mandates a fair opportunity to show cause, and the responses provided must be taken into account when making revisional orders. In this instance, the impugned orders failed to acknowledge or address the objections raised by the writ petitioner. Therefore, the court set aside all eight impugned orders on the grounds that the objections and replies to pre-revision notices were not considered. The judgment clarified that the court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but directed the first respondent to conduct a fresh revisional process, considering the objections raised by the writ petitioner.As part of the directives, the court instructed the first respondent to complete the revisional process expeditiously, within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The court disposed of all eight main writ petitions with these directives, closing the associated writ miscellaneous petitions without any order as to costs. The judgment underscores the importance of due process and the necessity of considering the dealer's objections in revisional proceedings under the TNVAT Act, ensuring a fair and transparent assessment process.