G.Sivasubramanian vs. The Commissioner Of
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, G. Sivasubramanian, challenged an assessment order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (2nd respondent) for the period 2011-12. The petitioner claimed that neither the pre-revision notice dated 13.03.2014 nor the assessment order itself was served upon him. He also contended that no personal hearing was granted before the impugned order was passed. The petitioner's business name had changed from 'Nagalakshmi Agencies' to 'Lakshmi Agencies' in 2008, with the respondent authority acknowledging this change. The respondents argued that the notice was sent to 'Nagalakshmi Agencies' at the correct address, where 'Lakshmi Agencies' also operated, and that the petitioner's only recourse was a statutory appeal.
Held
The Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated. It was an admitted fact that the petitioner's business name had changed from 'Nagalakshmi Agencies' to 'Lakshmi Agencies' with effect from 25.04.2008, and the respondents had acknowledged this change. The respondents failed to provide any proof that the pre-revision notice was served on the petitioner, and no proof was produced to show that the impugned assessment order was served on him. Furthermore, the Court noted that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, which is mandatory as per the judgment in G.V.Cotton Mills Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner(CT), Coimbatore. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was quashed. The Court directed the second respondent to issue a fresh pre-revision notice to the petitioner within two weeks, and upon receipt, the petitioner was to reply within two weeks. The respondent was then to pass final orders within eight weeks thereafter, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the pre-revision notice and the assessment order were duly served on the petitioner, considering the change in the business name from 'Nagalakshmi Agencies' to 'Lakshmi Agencies' and the lack of proof of service by the respondents (Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006)? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the non-grant of a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the assessment order (as per established legal principles)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices were not served on him, and no personal hearing was provided. He relied on the fact that his business name change was officially recognized by the respondent. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the notice was sent to the correct address under the old business name, which was still operational at that location. They argued that the petitioner should have filed a statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Sections Cited
Section 27, Section 51
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the second respondent in TIN No.33145501903/2011-12. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that a pre revision notice dated 13.03.2014 was issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 and the same was not received by the petitioner nor the assessment order was served on him. It is also the case of the petitioner that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2 assessment order. In such circumstances, the instant Writ Petition has been filed. 3.Heard Mr.B.Rooban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Jeyakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the name of the petitioner's business was changed from 'Nagalakshmi Agencies' to 'Lakshmi Agencies' with effect form 25.04.2008, as seen from the endorsement made by the second respondent in the registration certificate dated 22.01.2007. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, certificate was also issued to 'Lakshmi Agencies' by the 2nd respondent on 29.04.2008. According to him, neither the pre revision notice nor the impugned assessment order was served on the petitioner.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that the pre revision notice was sent to 'Nagalakshmi Agencies', at the same address, where the 'Lakshmi Agencies' is also carrying on business in which, the petitioner is the Proprietor. Therefore, according to him, the pre revision notice was duly served on the petitioner and the assessment order was also served on him. Therefore, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority forum under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006. 6.This Court has perused and examined the impugned assessment order. It is the categorical stand of the petitioner that neither the pre revision notice nor the assessment order was served on him. It is also an admitted fact that the name of the petitioner's concern was changed from 'Nagalakshmi Agencies' to 'Lakshmi Agencies' with effect from 25.04.2008, as seen from the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent in the registration certificate. The name change has also not been disputed by the respondents. Even according to the respondents, the pre revision notice was served only on 'Nagalakshmi Agencies', and not on 'Lakshmi Agencies'. No proof has been submitted before this Court to show that the pre revision notice was served on the petitioner. Further no proof was also produced before this Court to show that the impugned assessment order was served on the petitioner. 7.As seen from the impugned assessment order, no personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned assessment order. It is settled law as held by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of petitioner/dealer asks for personal hearing, it is mandatory for the respondents to grant personal hearing to the petitioner. But in the instant case, as seen from the impugned assessment order no personal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3 hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. 8.For the forgoing reasons, it is clear that the 2nd respondent has violated the principles of natural justice under the impugned assessment order. In the result, the impugned assessment order dated 10.12.2014 is hereby quashed and the second respondent shall issue a fresh pre revision notice to the petitioner under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner shall send a reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of the fresh pre revision notice and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, the second respondent shall pass final orders in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. 9.With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Assistant Registrar (CRL SIDE) //// Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.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, Commercial Tax Building, 5/4, 56, Chinnathopy Street, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District – 630 211. +1cc to Mr.B.Rooban, Advocate, SR.No.55014 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No.54941 W.P(MD).No.15465 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 DAS KK/SAR/02.04.2019/ 3P- 5C 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.