Bright Steels vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, M/s. Bright Steels, filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders issued by the State Tax Officer, Inspection Cell-II, Trichy, for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The appellant's primary contention was that they were not afforded a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent had issued notices for personal hearings on December 4, 2020, and December 15, 2020. The appellant did not appear on the first date and sought adjournment on the second. Despite being granted further time, the appellant did not file objections or appear for the hearing on December 29, 2020. The appellant later claimed to have filed objections on December 30, 2020. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions.
Held
The Court held that the respondent authority had scrupulously followed the mandate of Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that notices for personal hearing were issued to the appellant, and when the appellant requested an adjournment, their request was granted. However, the appellant failed to utilize the extended opportunity to file objections or appear for the hearing. The Court found that the appellant was solely responsible for not availing the opportunities provided. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petitions was found to be correct, and therefore, the Writ Appeals were dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authority violated Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by failing to provide the appellant with an opportunity of personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice? Appellant's argument: The appellant contended that they were not given a proper opportunity of personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the Act. They argued that the assessment orders were passed without adhering to this procedural safeguard, leading to a violation of natural justice. Respondent's argument: The respondent argued that opportunities for personal hearing were indeed provided on multiple occasions. They submitted that notices were issued, and when the appellant sought adjournment, their request was liberally considered. The respondent maintained that the appellant failed to utilize the opportunities granted and that the principles of natural justice were not violated.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY,J.) Challenging the common order passed in W.P(MD)Nos.14395, 14396, 14397 & 14398 of 2021, dated 13.08.2021, the petitioner in the Writ 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
W.A(MD)Nos.1902, 1903, 1904 & 1905 of 2021 Petitions have filed the above Writ Appeals. 2.The appellant filed the Writ Petitions to issue Writs of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent, dated 05.02.2021 in respect of the assessment orders and to quash the same. 3.The only contention of the appellant is that they were not given an opportunity of personal hearing, which is mandated under Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4.Under Section 75(4) of the Act, it has been mandated that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted on the request made by the assessee or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. 5.In the case on hand, it cannot be disputed that a notice of personal hearing was given to the appellant, fixing the personal hearing on 04.12.2020. However, on 04.12.2020, neither objections had been filed nor the appellant appeared in person for the personal hearing, therefore, subsequent notice was issued on 05.12.2020, where, again the appellant was invited by the office of the respondent to file their objection and also requested them to appear before the respondent office for personal hearing on 14.12.2020. On 14.12.2020, the representative of the appellant filed an adjournment letter seeking for further time of 15 days. The respondent, taking a liberal view, accepted the request made by the representative of the appellant and granted 15 days time to them. By the letter dated 15.12.2020, the appellant was called upon to appear for personal hearing on 29.12.2020 and file their objections. The appellant, for the reasons best known to them, chose not to utilise the opportunity granted by the respondent and did not file any objection on the said date. 6.Mr.P.V.Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that on the next date ie., on 30.12.2020, the appellant appeared before the respondent and filed their objections. 7.From the above, it is clear that the respondent had scrupulously followed Section 75(4) of the Act and it was only the appellant who chose not to avail the opportunities granted by the respondent for the personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Act. Further, it is also clear that absolutely there is no violation of principles of natural justice, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration all these aspects, rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions. 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
W.A(MD)Nos.1902, 1903, 1904 & 1905 of 2021 8.In such view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Assistant Registrar (CS-I) //// / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ps Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned. To The State Tax Officer, Inspection Cell-II, Trichy. +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-31519[F] dated 07/10/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.RAJA JAYA CHANDRA PAUL, Advocate ( SR-31327[F] dated 06/10/2021 ) W.A(MD)Nos.1902, 1903, 1904 & 1905 of 2021 06.10.2021
SS(CO) KB(21.10.2021) 3P 4C 3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.