Tvl.Vasantham Departmental And vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated 25.04.2018 were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that while the impugned orders stated that the details sought by the petitioner were annexed with the revision notices, the annexures did not disclose complete details. The Court also found that neither a proper enquiry was conducted nor were the materials for issuing the revision notices adequately supplied to the petitioner. Crucially, the opportunity of a personal hearing was not provided, which is mandated by the instructions from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the High Court's own judgments. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent was directed to conduct an enquiry, issue a fresh revision notice, and after the petitioner submits objections and attends a personal hearing, pass orders on merits within a specified timeframe.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Vasantham Departmental and Medical Stores, a dealer registered under the TNVAT Act, filed seven writ petitions challenging the assessment orders dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT)-III, Dindigul, for the tax periods 2010-11 to 2016-17. The petitioner was subjected to a VAT audit on 10.01.2017. Subsequently, notices were issued on 25.01.2018. The petitioner filed objections on 21.03.2018, requesting invoice-wise and date-wise details for the reversal of Input Tax Credit. However, the petitioner alleges that these details were not provided, nor was an opportunity for a personal hearing afforded before the impugned orders were passed, leading to a complaint of violation of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment orders dated 25.04.2018, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT)-III, Dindigul, for the tax periods 2010-11 to 2016-17, are liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-furnishing of requested details and the denial of a personal hearing? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in tax assessments). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the second respondent failed to provide the detailed invoice-wise and date-wise information sought by the petitioner regarding the reversal of Input Tax Credit. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that no personal hearing was granted, despite this being a procedural requirement and an instruction from the Head of the Department. The petitioner relied on the High Court's judgment in Tvl.JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, Chennai, which emphasizes the necessity of conducting an enquiry and providing materials before issuing notices. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.