Aarya Printer vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.AARYA PRINTER, represented by its Proprietor, filed two writ petitions challenging the proceedings of the second respondent, the State Tax Officer. The impugned orders, dated 31.05.2018, pertain to TIN No.33494822565/2010-11 and TIN: 33494822565/2011-12. The petitioner sought to quash these orders. The respondents are the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the State Tax Officer. The court noted that the impugned orders mentioned that pre-revision notices were issued to the assessee, but no reply was received.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed because personal hearing was not afforded to the assessee. The Court relied on the ratio laid down in G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Coimbatore, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India. The principle established is that even if an assessee fails to submit an objection to pre-assessment notices, the assessing authority is still obligated to post the matter for hearing by issuing a notice. Failure to appear at the hearing would then permit the authority to pass orders on merits. The Court found this ratio directly applicable to the present case. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the writ petitions were allowed. The matter was remitted to the respondents for fresh consideration after issuing a personal hearing notice and passing orders in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that the issue involves inter-state sales made without C-Form declaration and directed that the decision in Tvl.Bharath Traders case be borne in mind during the fresh assessment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the State Tax Officer are liable to be quashed on the ground that personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner, despite the petitioner not submitting a reply to the pre-revision notices? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and the interpretation of relevant procedural requirements). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that denial of personal hearing, even in the absence of a reply to pre-assessment notices, is contrary to principles of natural justice. They relied on the decision in G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Coimbatore, which held that failure to submit an objection to a pre-assessment notice does not give the assessing officer the right to deny an opportunity of personal hearing. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the denial of personal hearing. However, the impugned orders themselves state that no reply was received to the pre-revision notices, implying that this was the basis for proceeding without a hearing.