2021 (12) TMI 148 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessment orders quashed for lack of natural justice, Section 84 application mishandled, revision petitions remitted.

M/s. Jayamaruthi Wood Industry Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST), The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Jaihindpuram Assessment Circle, Madurai.

The court quashed the assessment orders due to a violation of natural justice principles and remanded the matters for reconsideration. After reassessment, ... Violation of principles of natural justice - validity of assessment order - rectification of mistake - assessment years 2008-2009 to 2014-2015 - HELD THAT:- Having receipt of the notice/order dated 07.01.2021, the petitioner having found any appeal provision against such order/notice dated 07.01.2021 has invoked the revisional power of the joint commissioner concerned under Section 54 of the Act and filed revisions before the first respondent on 04.03.2021 separately, in respect of each of the assessment order. Those revision petitions filed dated 04.03.2021 separately, for each of the assessment year referred to above, by the petitioner, had been rejected by separate orders passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2021. Insofar as the assessment order originally passed by the second respondent for various assessment years referred to above dated 20.06.2017 is concerned, those orders were set aside and the matters were remanded back to the second respondent for reconsideration by the orders of this Court dated 06.02.2018 - the second respondent assessing authority, after reconsideration, passed a revised assessment order on 21.01.2020 in all these cases. As against those orders, if the petitioner has got aggrieved, no doubt, he can prefer an appeal under Section 51 of the Act, however, in the case in hand, it is the case of the petitioner that some apparent error occurred in the order of revised assessment passed by the second respondent dated 21.01.2020. Therefore, in such case, the petitioner can very well invoke the power vest with the authorities to rectify the mistake under Section 84 of the Act. Whether any error apparently available on the face of the record, has to be ascertained and decided only by the assessing authority or the appellate authority or the revising authority as the case may be, when such application under Section 84 is filed by the Assessee, once such application is filed, the same should be disposed of in the manner as has been provided under Section 84 of the Act. Here in the case in hand, such invocation has been made by the petitioner under Section 84 of the Act and accordingly, when he filed an application by way of representation dated 07.12.2020, where, he has specifically stated that the case should be finally considered and a revised order, under Section 84 of the Act, by rectifying the mistakes committed, by passing the assessment order at an very earliest date, can be passed. In the case in hand, the second respondent, assessing authority before whom such representation under Section 84 of the Act was made on 07.12.2020 by the petitioner, the same should have been disposed only under the said section, however, the second respondent instead, has issued a notice on 07.01.2021, wherein no show cause or anything has been asked for from the petitioner, but an advisory was given by the second respondent to the petitioner to file an appeal that is regular appeal under Section 51 of the Act r/w Rule 14 of the Rules as against the revised assessment order - this Court cannot find fault with the petitioner in preferring a revision before the first respondent. This Court feel that the orders, which are impugned herein passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2021 as well as the notice dated 07.01.2021 advising the petitioner to file a regular appeal against the revised assessment order cannot stand in the legal scrutiny, therefore, both the orders passed by the first and second respondent are liable to be interfered with by this Court - the impugned orders passed in these writ petitions by the first respondent as well as the order against which such revision was filed by the petitioner that is the order by way of notice dated 07.01.2021 passed in all these cases by the second respondent are hereby quashed. The matter is now remitted back at the stage of Section 84 application dated 07.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner in each of the case to the second respondent - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:1. Violation of principles of natural justice.2. Reassessment and reiteration of earlier assessment orders.3. Invocation of Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for rectification of mistakes.4. Issuance of advisory notice instead of addressing the Section 84 application.5. Filing of revision petitions under Section 54 of the Act.6. Rejection of revision petitions by the first respondent.Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioner challenged the assessment orders for the years 2008-2009 to 2014-2015 on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The court noted that the final orders were passed without considering the petitioner's request for additional time, which infringed on the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the orders and remanded the matters back to the second respondent for reconsideration, with a directive to afford the petitioner due opportunity.2. Reassessment and Reiteration of Earlier Assessment Orders:Following the court's remand, the second respondent reassessed the cases and reiterated the earlier assessment orders through revised orders dated 21.01.2020. The petitioner, instead of filing an appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, identified apparent mistakes in these revised orders and sought rectification under Section 84 of the Act.3. Invocation of Section 84 for Rectification of Mistakes:The petitioner invoked Section 84 of the Act, which allows for rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record by the assessing authority, appellate authority, or revising authority within five years of the order. The petitioner submitted a representation on 07.12.2020 to rectify the mistakes in the revised assessment orders.4. Issuance of Advisory Notice Instead of Addressing the Section 84 Application:Instead of addressing the Section 84 application, the second respondent issued a notice on 07.01.2021 advising the petitioner to file a regular appeal under Section 51 of the Act. The court found this approach incorrect, emphasizing that the application under Section 84 should have been disposed of as per the legal provisions.5. Filing of Revision Petitions under Section 54:Aggrieved by the advisory notice, the petitioner filed revision petitions under Section 54 of the Act before the first respondent. Section 54 allows for revision applications for orders where no appeal provision exists under Sections 51 and 52. The petitioner argued that the advisory notice was effectively a conclusive order, warranting a revision.6. Rejection of Revision Petitions by the First Respondent:The first respondent rejected the revision petitions, stating that the petitioner objected to a notice rather than an order or proceeding, and hence, Section 54 was not applicable. The court, however, found that the second respondent's action of issuing an advisory notice instead of disposing of the Section 84 application was a procedural error.Conclusion:The court quashed the orders passed by the first respondent and the advisory notice issued by the second respondent. The matter was remitted back to the second respondent to consider the Section 84 application dated 07.12.2020 on merits and in accordance with law, directing the respondent to pass orders within thirty days. The petitioner was allowed to seek further remedies based on the outcome of these orders. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.