Tvl.Great White Global vs. The Commissioner Of

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment orders dated May 15, 2017, were liable to be set aside. The Court found that the respondents had not provided the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to explain and defend their case. Specifically, the petitioner had sent a letter requesting a one-month extension to submit their reply/objections for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, which was received by the respondents on May 8, 2017. The respondents proceeded to pass the final orders without considering this request and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must provide a fair hearing and consider all submissions made by the assessee before passing adverse orders. The Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the petitioner to submit their reply/objections within two weeks. The respondents were ordered to consider these submissions and pass fresh orders on merits within six weeks thereafter.

Facts

The petitioner, Great White Global Private Ltd., engaged in the electrical goods business and acting as a Clearing and Forwarding agent, regularly filed monthly returns under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. Following an inspection on December 22, 2015, the Assistant Commissioner (CT) issued notices alleging a difference between reported monthly returns and annual turnover statements. Revised notices were issued for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, with no revised notice for 2015-16. The petitioner, on April 21, 2017, requested a one-month extension to submit objections, which was received by the respondents on May 8, 2017. Despite this, the respondents passed final orders on May 15, 2017, without considering the petitioner's request for time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment orders dated May 15, 2017, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) are liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a reasonable opportunity to be heard, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to explain and defend their case. They argued that their request for a one-month extension to submit objections, sent via registered post and acknowledged by the respondents, was ignored. Therefore, the final orders were passed without considering their reply, violating natural justice principles. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that notices were issued on February 9, 2017, for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. After verification, revised notices were issued for some assessment years due to calculation errors. They contended that the petitioner failed to provide a reply within a reasonable time, leading to the passing of the impugned orders.