M/S. Noton (INDIA) Projects vs. The Commercial Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Notch (India) Projects, filed five writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruparankundram Assessment Circle. The impugned orders, dated 12.11.2014, pertained to different assessment years. The petitioner sought to quash these orders on grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of natural justice, specifically requesting a fresh assessment order after being afforded an opportunity of being heard. The respondent is the Commercial Tax Officer. The core issue revolves around the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner, despite the petitioner having explicitly requested it.
Held
The Court held that the impugned assessment orders were liable to be quashed due to the denial of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court noted that the impugned orders themselves indicated that the dealer had asked for a personal hearing. It was the duty of the respondent to grant this opportunity. The failure to afford a personal hearing, when specifically requested, clearly vitiates the impugned orders. The Court relied on the ratio laid down in G.V. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), which held that even if objections are not submitted to pre-assessment notices, the assessing authority is still expected to post the matter for hearing. The Supreme Court's observation in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India, that hearing is required even in the absence of a specific statutory provision unless excluded, was also cited. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh assessment after issuing a personal hearing notice and passing orders in accordance with law. The writ petitions were allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment orders are liable to be quashed for denial of personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to provide a personal hearing, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice, especially when the petitioner had specifically requested it. The petitioner contended that not affording this opportunity vitiates the assessment orders. 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 decision in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the denial of personal hearing.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2.Though the writ petitions are five in number, the petitioner is one and the same. The assessment years alone are different. The orders impugned in the writ petitions are liable to be quashed for the sole reason that personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner herein. Interestingly, in the impugned orders itself, it has been specifically mentioned that the dealer asked for personal hearing. When the dealer had specifically asked for personal hearing, it was the duty of the respondent to have granted the same. Not affording the opportunity of personal hearing clearly vitiates the impugned orders. 3.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 1/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
W.P.(MD)Nos.
20187 to 20191 of 2014
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.“ 4.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 respondent. The 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 (AD II) //// / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 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 Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruparankundram Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Buildings, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.S.KARUNAKAR, Advocate ( SR-6060[F] dated 19/02/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-6169[F] dated 19/02/2021 ) W.P.(MD)No.20187 to 20191 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1&1 of 2014 RMI(CO) KK(01.03.2021) 2P 4C 2/2 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.