M/S.Jeyakrishna Flour Mills vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the revisional orders passed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act were liable to be set aside. The primary reason was the failure of the impugned orders to demonstrate that the petitioner's objections and replies to the pre-revision notices had been considered. The Court emphasized the statutory imperative under the proviso to Section 27(1) and (2) of the TNVAT Act, which mandates giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause. This opportunity, the Court reasoned, implies that the dealer's response must be considered. Since the impugned orders were silent on this aspect, they were found to be defective. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the matter. The operative direction was to set aside the eight impugned orders and direct the first respondent to conduct the revisional legal drill de novo, considering the petitioner's objections, and pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jeyakrishna Flour Mills (P) Ltd., filed eight writ petitions challenging revisional orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax) under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The orders pertained to the tax periods from 2007-08 to 2014-15. The petitioner's business premises were audited on 04.03.2015, leading to proposals. Pre-revision notices were issued on 12.01.2016, to which the petitioner submitted detailed replies. However, the petitioner contended that the impugned orders, dated 20.03.2017, failed to demonstrate any consideration of their objections and replies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the revisional orders passed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act are liable to be quashed for failing to consider the objections/replies submitted by the petitioner to the pre-revision notices, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements? The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without considering their detailed objections and replies to the pre-revision notices, which is a violation of the statutory mandate to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause. They contended that the orders did not reflect any application of mind to their submissions. The revenue, through the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the objections and responses were indeed before the assessing authority who passed the impugned orders. However, they conceded that an impugned order cannot be improved upon by way of a counter-affidavit, and the orders themselves did not mention the consideration of the petitioner's replies.