High Court overturns TNVAT order for lack of hearing, mandates fresh review with notice and personal hearing

The High Court of Madras set aside the impugned order under the TNVAT Act due to the lack of a personal hearing, emphasizing the statutory requirement for such a hearing. The court directed the respondent to conduct a fresh revisional exercise, ensuring proper notice and a personal hearing for the petitioner within a specified timeframe. The decision did not express an opinion on the case's merits, and both parties were allowed to address any limitation points regarding notice. The writ petition was disposed of with specified directives, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to an order under TNVAT Act for lack of notice and personal hearing.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Lack of Notice and Personal Hearing
The petitioner challenged an order dated 06.11.2014 made under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, alleging that it was made without notice or affording an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner, a dealer registered under the TNVAT Act, received an auction notice related to an immovable property without prior knowledge of the proceedings. The respondent provided a certified copy of the impugned order in response to the petitioner's representation. The court noted discrepancies in the notice sent to the petitioner, as it was received by a different individual, indicating a lack of proper notice. The court emphasized the importance of a personal hearing in cases under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, citing a previous judgment. The court held that the impugned order must be set aside due to the absence of a personal hearing, even if notice was assumed to have been given. The court directed the respondent to conduct a revisional exercise afresh, ensuring notice and a personal hearing to the petitioner within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras set aside the impugned order due to the lack of a personal hearing, emphasizing the statutory requirement for such a hearing in cases under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act. The court clarified that this decision did not reflect an opinion on the merits of the case. Additionally, the court directed the respondent to conduct a fresh revisional exercise, ensuring proper notice and a personal hearing for the petitioner within a stipulated period. The court also allowed both parties to address any limitation points regarding the petitioner being put on notice before or after the revision. The writ petition was disposed of with the specified directives, and no costs were awarded.

---