R.M.Karuppaiah vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, R.M. Karuppaiah, a registered dealer, challenged an order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer-Main, Pudukkottai. The petitioner had received a pre-revision notice dated 25.10.2016 and submitted his objections in person, with an acknowledgement on record. However, the impugned order made no reference to these objections, and no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner sought to quash the order on grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of principles of natural justice.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 was liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner had submitted objections to the pre-revision notice, but these were not considered in the impugned order. Furthermore, no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. The Court relied on the ratio laid down in G.V. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Coimbatore, and Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India, which emphasize the mandatory requirement of providing a personal hearing to the assessee, even if objections to pre-assessment notices are not submitted. The Court reasoned that failure to provide a hearing is a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was granted three weeks from the date of receipt of the order to submit his explanation/objections, after which the respondent was to issue a personal hearing notice and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.01.2017, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, specifically by denying the petitioner a personal hearing and failing to consider his objections, contrary to the provisions of the relevant Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent violated the principles of natural justice by failing to consider his objections submitted in response to the pre-revision notice and by not granting him a personal hearing. He relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in G.V. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Coimbatore, which held that denial of personal hearing is illegal even if objections are not submitted, and that a hearing is required unless statutorily excluded, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel on either side.
The petitioner is a dealer registered with the respondent. The petitioner received pre-revision notice dated 25.10.2016. The petitioner handed over his objections in person. In page No.4 of the typed set of papers, I find that the acknowledgement issued by the departmental official. In the impugned order, there is no reference to the petitioner's objections. That apart, no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. 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. 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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.“
The aforesaid ratio clearly applies to the case on hand. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. This writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent. The petitioner is given three weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to offer his explanation/objection. Thereafter, 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 (w) //// / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) PMU 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. 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To: The Commercial Tax Officer-Main, Pudukkottai-II Assessment Circle, CT Buildings, Pudukkottai. +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-9176[F] dated 05/03/2021 ) +1 CC to Mr.K.SOUNDARARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-9304[F] dated 05/03/2021 ) W.P.(MD)No.4717 of 2017 04.03.2021
KM (09.04.2021) 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.