Tcl.Vino Trading, Rep. By Its vs. The Commissioenr Of

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2019 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without proper application of mind by the State Tax Officer. The Court noted that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and no independent enquiry was conducted by cross-verifying sales with the other end sellers. The Court found that the respondent had not applied his mind before passing the order, as evidenced by the observation that the petitioner had sent a reply when, in fact, no reply was sent. The Court also observed that the allegations in the pre-revision notice were contradictory. Therefore, the Court quashed the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the State Tax Officer for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to grant the petitioner adequate opportunity to raise objections, permit filing of a reply to the pre-revision notice, and afford a personal hearing, passing final orders within eight weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Vino Trading, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TN VAT) Act, 2006, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the State Tax Officer, Madurai Rural (South). The impugned order pertains to the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner had previously paid tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 21,642/- on 09.02.2017, following an inspection on 19.09.2016, which alleged suppression of purchases. Subsequently, the respondent issued another notice on 03.01.2019, again alleging suppression of purchases and proposing to reverse input tax credit, citing discrepancies with the other end seller. The petitioner contended that the allegations in the second notice were contradictory and that the assessment order was passed without proper opportunity and application of mind.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 28.02.2019, passed by the State Tax Officer, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice and non-application of mind, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was afforded, and the respondent failed to conduct an independent enquiry or cross-verify sales with the other end sellers, relying solely on departmental web reports. The petitioner also argued that the pre-revision notices contained contradictory allegations. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not present any specific arguments against these contentions in the judgment, other than noting that no reply was filed by the petitioner to the pre-revision notice.