Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot vs. The State Tax Officer (Adjudication)

Held

The Court held that the respondent had not granted sufficient time to the petitioner to raise all objections, especially considering that documents forming the basis of the show cause notices were furnished only on 20.10.2020, and the assessment orders were passed on 31.10.2020. The Court noted that the petitioner's reply, though sent on 23.10.2020, was dispatched on 02.11.2020, and even if considered, it was unlikely to have been processed before the orders were issued. The Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the hurried manner in which the assessment orders were passed. However, considering the substantial tax amount involved, the Court imposed a condition for quashing the orders. The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for each of the three assessment orders by 05.01.2021. Upon such payment, the impugned assessment orders would stand quashed and the matter would be remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, with adequate opportunity for the petitioner to raise objections and a personal hearing within twelve weeks from the payment date. Failure to pay the conditional amount would result in the dismissal of the writ petitions.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot, filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 31.10.2020, passed by the State Tax Officer (Adjudication) for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the respondent violated principles of natural justice by not granting sufficient opportunity to reply to show cause notices issued on 03.08.2020. The petitioner requested documents, which were provided only on 20.10.2020, leaving a short period before the assessment orders were passed. The petitioner also claimed to have sent a detailed reply on 23.10.2020, which was allegedly not considered. The respondent argued that sufficient opportunity was granted and personal hearing was offered, but the petitioner failed to appear.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent violated the principles of natural justice by passing the impugned assessment orders without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file a detailed reply and raise objections, particularly considering the pandemic situation and the delay in furnishing requested documents? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent issued show cause notices on 03.08.2020 and provided crucial documents only on 20.10.2020. Despite requests for time and a subsequent reply dated 23.10.2020, the respondent passed assessment orders on 31.10.2020, violating natural justice. They relied on the fact that their reply was dispatched on 02.11.2020, after the orders were passed, and that personal hearing was not afforded. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that sufficient opportunity was provided, and a personal hearing was offered, which the petitioner failed to attend. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were not violated.