Tvl.Kasim Textile Mills(P) LTD vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial

Held

The Court held that the second respondent violated the principles of natural justice by not affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, including granting the right of personal hearing. The Court found a total non-application of mind on the part of the second respondent while passing the impugned assessment order. The assessment order erroneously relied on the MIS and Intranet web report, despite the petitioner's request to drop the proposal and their submission of returns and payment of taxes. The Court quashed the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter 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. Kasim Textile Mills (P) Limited, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated June 15, 2016, passed by the second respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner had filed monthly returns for the period 2014-15, which were accepted under Section 22(2) of the Act. However, the second respondent issued notices on April 15, 2016, and April 21, 2016, proposing to levy penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on April 27, 2016, requesting the proposal to be dropped. Despite this reply, the impugned assessment order was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the second respondent violated the principles of natural justice by not affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to place all objections and by not granting a personal hearing, thereby contravening Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006? The petitioner argued that the second respondent violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide an adequate opportunity to present objections and by not granting a personal hearing, despite a specific request. They contended that the assessment order was passed with a total non-application of mind. The revenue, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, argued that adequate opportunity was provided and that an alternative efficacious statutory appellate remedy under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, was available to the petitioner.