Pioneer Spinners vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 15.09.2015 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the respondent had failed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner on 30.06.2015 and the subsequent request for an adjournment. Furthermore, the respondent did not provide an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the final order. The Court reasoned that the respondent's assertion that no objections were filed was factually incorrect, as the petitioner had indeed submitted objections. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to receive objections from the petitioner, provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, and pass a fresh order on merits within two months from the date of receipt of the objections.

Facts

The petitioner, Pioneer Spinners, a unit of National Textile Corporation Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Paramakudi Assessment Circle. The respondent had issued a revision notice on 03.06.2015 concerning Input Tax Credit for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The petitioner submitted objections on 30.06.2015. Subsequently, another notice was issued on 25.08.2015, and the petitioner sought an adjournment on 08.09.2015 to file further objections. The respondent, however, passed the final order on 15.09.2015, noting that no objections had been filed, despite the petitioner having submitted objections on 30.06.2015 and a request for adjournment on 08.09.2015.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 15.09.2015, passed by the respondent, is violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-consideration of objections filed by the petitioner and the absence of a personal hearing? (Question of law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent passed the final order without applying mind and without considering the objections filed by the petitioner on 30.06.2015 and the subsequent request for adjournment. The petitioner contended that no date for personal hearing was fixed, rendering the order violative of the principles of natural justice. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.