Tvl. Saran Tiles & Traders vs. The Commissioner Of

Held

The Court held that the second respondent had violated the principles of natural justice. It was noted that while the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the pre-revision notice, the impugned assessment order did not objectively consider any of the objections. Instead, the order merely stated that the objections were reviewed and found unacceptable, without providing any specific reasoning. Furthermore, the Court found that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before the assessment order was passed. The Court observed that the respondent had blindly accepted the report of the Enforcement wing officials without application of mind. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 24.02.2015 and remanded the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent was directed to provide the petitioner with sufficient opportunity to raise all objections available under law and to grant a personal hearing within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Saran Tiles and Traders, a registered dealer under the TN VAT Act, 2006, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Tenkasi Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without considering their objections submitted in reply to a pre-revision notice dated 30.12.2014, and without affording a personal hearing. The petitioner's objections pertained to a stock difference of Rs. 5,40,000/- derived without physical verification and the adjustment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) against output tax liability. The respondents argued that all objections were considered and an alternative appellate remedy under Section 51 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 was available.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 24.02.2015, passed by the second respondent, is a speaking order, considering the objections raised by the petitioner in their reply to the pre-revision notice dated 30.12.2014, as required under Section 27 of the TN VAT Act, 2006? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the second respondent by not affording a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned assessment order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was not a speaking order as it failed to consider their specific objections regarding the stock difference and the adjustment of ITC. They contended that the stock difference was erroneously calculated without a physical stock check, and there was no prohibition against adjusting ITC against output tax. The petitioner asserted that the respondents violated the principles of natural justice by not considering their objections and not providing a personal hearing. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that all objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered and that an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy under Section 51 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 was available, making the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution not maintainable.