Tvl.Ssp Enterprises vs. The Appellate Deputy
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.SSP Enterprises, filed four writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) for the tax periods 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, all dated 21.03.2018. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by denying an opportunity for a personal hearing. The revenue, represented by the Government Advocate, sought to uphold the impugned orders. The core of the dispute lies in the procedural fairness of the assessment process.
Held
The Court held that the impugned assessment orders were liable to be quashed on the single ground of failure to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of a personal hearing. The Court noted that the second respondent issued pre-revision notices, to which the petitioner apparently did not respond. Subsequently, the assessment authority proceeded to confirm the proposals without granting a personal hearing. Citing the Division Bench judgment in G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. and the Supreme Court's observation in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College, the Court reiterated that a personal hearing is mandatory unless specifically excluded by a statutory provision. The ratio decidendi is that the denial of a personal hearing, even in the absence of a response to pre-assessment notices, vitiates the assessment order. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the second respondent for fresh assessment, granting the petitioner three weeks to submit objections and directing the respondent to issue a personal hearing notice thereafter.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment orders passed by the second respondent are liable to be quashed for failure to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of a personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were illegal and passed in gross violation of natural justice principles due to the denial of a personal hearing. They relied on the Division Bench judgment 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, emphasizing that a personal hearing is required even if no objection is filed to pre-assessment notices. The respondents (revenue) contended that the orders should be confirmed, but did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the denial of personal hearing, as noted by the Court.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 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.
The orders impugned in the writ petitions are liable to be quashed on a single ground.
The second respondent issued pre-revision notices dated 25.05.2017. It appears that the petitioner did not respond to the same. Since the objection was not received from the petitioner, the assessment authority proceeded to confirm the proposals set out in the pre-revision notices and passed the orders impugned in these writ petitions.
Though the learned Government Advocate would call upon this Court to confirm the orders impugned in the writ petitions, 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. 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:- 2/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “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.“
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 () //// / /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. 3/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Madurai (North), Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai 625 020. 2. The Assistant Commissioner(CT), (Now Re-designated as Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tallakulam Assessment Circle, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai – 625 020. +1 CC to Mr.K.SRINIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-5800[F] dated 17/02/2021 ) W.P.(MD)Nos.14683 to 14686 of 2019 17.02.2021 KM (26.02.2021) 4P 4C 4/4 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.