Tvl.Cardamom Planters vs. The Assistant Commissioner(CT)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Cardamon Planters Association, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 25, 2017, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Bodinayakanur. The order pertained to the assessment year 2015-16. The respondent had issued a show-cause notice on April 20, 2017, based on discrepancies identified from auction sales details collected from the Spices Board. The petitioner did not appear to have filed a reply to the show-cause notice. Subsequently, the respondent passed the impugned order confirming the proposals in the notice without affording the petitioner a personal hearing. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested a fresh assessment after being provided with the relied-upon documents and an opportunity to file objections.
Held
The Court held that the failure to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing vitiates the impugned order, making it illegal and invalid. The Court relied on the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in G.V. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), which stated that even if an objection is not filed in response to pre-assessment notices, the assessing authority must still post the matter for hearing by issuing a notice. The Court further cited the Supreme Court's observation in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India, emphasizing that a hearing is required even in the absence of a specific statutory provision, unless expressly excluded. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for a fresh assessment. The respondent was directed to issue a personal hearing notice and pass orders afresh in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated July 25, 2017, passed by the respondent is illegal, invalid, and violative of the principles of natural justice due to the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order is vitiated by the failure of the respondent to provide a personal hearing, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice. They contended that even if no objection was filed in response to the pre-assessment notice, the respondent was obligated to issue a personal hearing notice. The petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in G.V. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(CT) and the Supreme Court's observation in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India. The respondent, through the learned Government Advocate, sought to confirm the impugned order. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments presented by the respondent regarding the denial of personal hearing, other than a general request to confirm the order.
Sections Cited
Not Specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and Rep.by itsN.P.K.S.Syed Ibrahim,
Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2.The petitioner is an assessee registered with the respondent. The case on hand pertains to the assessment years 2015-16. The respondent had noticed certain discrepancies based on certain details collected by the Spices Board. Hence, notice dated 20.04.2017 was issued to the petitioner and served on 02.05.2017. The petitioner does not appear to have given any reply. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed confirming the proposals set out in the notice. It is obvious that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and the learned Government Advocate took me through the same. 4.Though the learned Government Advocate would call upon this Court to confirm the order impugned in the writ petition, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, failure to give an opportunity of hearing vitiates the impugned orders. The issue is no longer res integra. 5.The Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in the decision reported in [2019] 60 GSTR 418(Mad) (G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., V. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Avarayampalayam Assessment Circle, Coimbatore) held as follows:- “Denial of personal hearing:
The respondent denied the appellant opportunity of hearing only on the ground that objection was not given to the pre-assessment notices. Even if objection was not given, still the assessing authority was expected to post the matter for hearing by issuing notice to the assessee. In case the assessee fail to appear, it is open to the assessment authority to pass orders on merits. We make the position clear that the failure to submit objection to the pre assessment notice would not give a right to the assessment officer to deny opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee.
The Supreme Court in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental
College
v.
Union
of India MANU/SC/0873/2013 : [2013] 10 Scale 608 observed that even in the absence of a specific provision of giving hearing, the hearing is required in such cases, unless specifically excluded by a statutory provision.“ 6.The aforesaid ratio clearly applies to the case on hand. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent. The respondent will issue a personal hearing notice and pass orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Assistant Registrar(CS-I) //// / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rmi 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 Assistant Commissioner (CT), Bodinayakanur. +1 CC to M/s.A.CHANDRASEKARAN, Advocate ( SR-12452[F] dated 19/03/2021 )
and W.M.P.(MD)No.12436 of 2018 17.03.2021 sss(CO) TR(21.04.2021) 3P 3C 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.