Omkar Textiles vs. The Commisisoner Of
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Omkar Textiles, filed two writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupparankundram Assessment Circle. The impugned proceedings were dated 15.06.2015, pertaining to the tax periods 2013-14 and 2010-11. The petitioner contended that a personal hearing was not afforded to them. This contention was not controverted by the respondents, and the impugned orders did not indicate that a personal hearing was granted. The petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Held
The Court held that the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner was a fatal flaw in the assessment proceedings. Citing the Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in G.V. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), the Court reiterated that even if an assessee fails to submit objections to pre-assessment notices, the assessing authority is still obligated to post the matter for hearing by issuing a notice. The failure to submit objections does not grant the officer the right to deny a personal hearing. The Court also referred to a Supreme Court observation that a hearing is required even in the absence of a specific statutory provision, unless explicitly excluded. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Commercial Tax Officer for fresh assessment, with the petitioner granted three weeks to submit their explanation/objections. The officer was directed to issue a personal hearing notice thereafter and pass orders afresh in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Commercial Tax Officer erred in passing assessment orders without affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as per Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (or equivalent provisions under GST, though not explicitly stated in the judgment)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were denied a personal hearing, which is a fundamental right, and that the assessment orders should be quashed on this ground alone. They relied on the principle that an opportunity of being heard must be provided unless specifically excluded by statute. Revenue's contention: The judgment notes that the petitioner's contention regarding the denial of personal hearing was not controverted by the respondents. Therefore, no specific arguments were recorded for the revenue on this point.
Sections Cited
Section 75
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
C O M M O N O R D E R Heard the learned counsel on either side.
Though the writ petitions are two in number, the petitioner is one and the same. The assessment years alone are different. Though very many grounds have been urged, these writ petitions came to be disposed of on a short ground. The petitioner in Ground (vi), specifically pleaded that personal hearing was not afforded. This contention is not controverted. In the impugned order also, it is not seen that personal hearing was given.
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: 10.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. 11.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.“ 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.13248 of 2015: Writ petition is filed
The aforesaid ratio clearly applies to the case on hand. In this view of the matter, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are quashed. These writ petitions are allowed. The matter is remitted to the file of the second 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 second respondent will issue a personal hearing notice and pass orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Assistant Registrar (CS-I) //// / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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. PMU To:
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o.The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupparankundram Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Complex, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai District – 625 020. +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-8192[F] dated 02/03/2021 )
W.P.(MD)No.13248 of 2015 26.02.2021
GS (22.04.2021) 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.