M/S.Tamil Traders vs. The Appellate Deputy
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Tamil Traders, is a dealer registered with the second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Karur. The case pertains to the assessment year 2016-17. Following an inspection of the petitioner's business premises by the Enforcement Wing, a pre-revision notice was issued on June 21, 2017. The petitioner submitted a reply on August 3, 2017, requesting the dropping of proceedings. Subsequently, an order dated July 19, 2018, was passed by the second respondent, which is now under challenge in this writ petition. The respondents filed a counter affidavit.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on two grounds: (a) its non-speaking nature and (b) the failure to afford personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court referred to the ratio laid down in G.V. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Coimbatore, which stated that denial of personal hearing vitiates the order, even if no objection was filed to the pre-assessment notice. The Supreme Court's observation in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India was also cited, emphasizing the requirement of hearing unless specifically excluded by statute. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration after issuing a personal hearing notice and passing orders in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated July 19, 2018, passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed for being non-speaking? 2. Whether the impugned order dated July 19, 2018, passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed for failure to afford personal hearing to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order is unlawful and contrary to the principles of natural justice, specifically citing the denial of personal hearing. 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), Coimbatore. The respondents, through the learned Government Advocate, sought to uphold the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2.The petitioner is a dealer registered with the second respondent. The case on hand pertains to the assessment year 2016-
The petitioner's business premises were inspected by the Enforcement Wing. Based on the same, pre-revision notice was issued on 21.06.2017. The petitioner gave his reply dated 03.08.2017 seeking dropping of proceedings. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 19.07.2018 came to be passed. The same is assailed in this writ petition. 3.The respondents have 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, 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ failure to give an opportunity of hearing vitiates the impugned orders. The issue is no longer res integra. 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.“ 5.The impugned order is liable to be quashed for two reasons. (a) the non speaking nature of the order (b) personal hearing was not afforded.
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 second respondent. The second 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 () //// / /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. 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) Commercial Taxes Building, Trichy. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Karur (West) Assessment Circle, Karur. +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-6165[F] dated 19/02/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.K.SRINIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-6065[F] dated 19/02/2021 )
18/02/2020 ES(CO) KB(03.03.2021) 3P 5C
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.