Tvl.City Drugs & Surgicals vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial

Held

The Court held that the Commercial Tax Officer (second respondent) had violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's request for the web report and other documents was reasonable, as it was the basis for the proposed revision of assessment. Without these documents, the petitioner could not file a proper reply to the pre-revision notice. The Court found the observation in the assessment order that the petitioner had promised to provide documents to be an "absurd observation," as the petitioner had merely requested the documents. Furthermore, the Court noted that no personal hearing was afforded despite a specific request. The Court concluded that there was a total non-application of mind by the second respondent. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent was directed to pass a fresh order after affording sufficient opportunity, including a personal hearing, within eight weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. City Drugs & Surgicals, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, filed their monthly returns for the period 2014-15, which were accepted by the Commercial Tax Officer (second respondent). Subsequently, the second respondent issued a pre-revision notice under Section 27 of the Act proposing to revise the assessment. The petitioner requested a copy of the web report, which formed the basis of the proposed revision, and other relevant documents to file a detailed reply. However, the second respondent passed an assessment order without furnishing the web report or granting a personal hearing, erroneously noting that the petitioner had promised to provide documents within one month. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commercial Tax Officer (second respondent) violated the principles of natural justice by failing to furnish a copy of the web report and other relevant documents to the petitioner, thereby preventing them from filing an adequate reply to the pre-revision notice issued under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006? 2. Whether the Commercial Tax Officer (second respondent) violated the principles of natural justice by failing to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner despite a specific request, before passing the impugned assessment order under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the second respondent violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the requested web report and other documents, and by not affording an adequate opportunity to present objections or a personal hearing. They argued that the assessment order contained an absurd observation that the petitioner had promised to provide documents, which was contrary to their letter requesting the web report. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner and that an alternative, efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.