M/S.Bharathi Trade Links vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Bharathi Trade Links, filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Karur. The first petition (WP(MD)No.16705 of 2019) concerned the tax period 2014-2015, and the second (WP(MD)No.16706 of 2019) concerned 2015-2016. The petitioner alleged that the orders, passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006, were unlawful and violated principles of natural justice because a personal hearing was not afforded. The petitioner had submitted objections on 20.02.2017 in the first case. The respondents did not controvert the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of personal hearing.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders were liable to be quashed due to the failure to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court 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 must still post the matter for hearing. The Supreme Court's observation in Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India, that a hearing is required even in the absence of a specific statutory provision unless expressly excluded, was also cited. Consequently, the orders were quashed, and the matters were remitted to the second respondent. The petitioner was granted two weeks to submit objections and supporting documents. If the respondent was not satisfied, they were to afford a personal hearing and pass orders afresh. The writ petitions were allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the second respondent are liable to be quashed for failure to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the orders were passed without granting an opportunity for a personal hearing, which is a violation of natural justice. They relied on their specific plea in the affidavit and the principles laid down in judicial precedents. Revenue's arguments: The learned Special Government Pleader urged the Court to confirm the impugned orders. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue countering the petitioner's claim on the lack of personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 27
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2.The petitioners are two in number. But the petitioner in both is one and the same. The assessment years pertain to the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The impugned orders are liable to be quashed for the simple reason that opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded before the passing the same. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioner had specifically pleaded that the second respondent has straightaway passed the impugned order under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 without granting opportunity of personal hearing and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. 3.Even though such a ground has been taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, the respondents have not controverted the stand taken by the petitioner. Though the learned Special Government Pleader called 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 opportunity of personal hearing vitiates the impugned orders. 4.The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the 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.“ 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
WP(MD)No.16705 of 2019 5.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 two more weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to offer his explanation/objection along with supporting documents. If the second respondent is not satisfied with the same, it is open to him to proceed in accordance with law. In that event, the second respondent has to necessarily afford an opportunity of personal hearing and pass orders afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Assistant Registrar (CS-II) //// / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) skm 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: 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Trichy. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Karur (west) Assessment Circle, Karur. +2 CC to Mr.K.SRINIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-5799[F] dated 17/02/2021 ) WP(MD)Nos.16705 & 16706 of 2019 17.02.2021 KM (08.03.2021) 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.