TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court sets aside tax notice due to procedural errors in VAT Act case.</h1> The High Court set aside a notice demanding tax liabilities due to the assessing officer's failure to follow due process in a case involving a ... Valid notice or not - resent challenge is to a document styled as 'notice' - perusal of the same makes it clear that it is in fact an order passed by the assessing officer disposing the additional rectification petition dated 12.04.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. HELD THAT:- Being an order, it was incumbent upon the authority to issue notice to the petitioner, hear it and thereafter dispose the request for rectification of order of assessment dated 30.08.2019. This has not been done and though no counter has been filed in the matter since the matter is listed for admission only today, Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepted notice for the Commercial Taxes Department has obtained instructions from the officer and confirms this fact fairly. In light of the fact that the additional rectification petition dated 12.04.2023 is now pending in light of setting aside of order dated 04.05.2023, the petitioner is permitted to appear before the authority for hearing of both the rectification petition as well as additional rectification petition dated 16.03.2023 and 12.04.2023 respectively on 23.06.2023 at 10.30 a.m. without expecting any notice in this regard to the hearing as scheduled aforesaid. These writ petitions are disposed. Issues Involved:The judgment involves the challenge to a notice dated 04.05.2023, which was actually an order passed by the assessing officer regarding a rectification petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Failure to Follow Due ProcessThe assessing officer did not follow due process as required by law. It was necessary for the authority to issue a notice to the petitioner, provide an opportunity to be heard, and then dispose of the request for rectification. However, this essential step was not taken, as confirmed by the Additional Government Pleader.Issue 2: Setting Aside of Impugned NoticeDue to the failure to follow proper procedure, the High Court set aside the notice dated 04.05.2023, which demanded the dealers to discharge tax liabilities. The rectification petition filed under Section 84 of the Act was pending before the officer, and the petitioner was permitted to appear for a hearing without expecting any further notice.Issue 3: Hearing and OrderThe petitioner was allowed to appear before the authority for the hearing of both the rectification petition and the additional rectification petition on a specified date. The court directed that an order be passed within six weeks from the date of the personal hearing, in accordance with the law.Conclusion:The writ petitions were disposed of without any costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as well. The judgment emphasized the importance of following due process and providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to be heard before making any decisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
