Tvl. Abhinesh Enterprises vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Abhinesh Enterprises, filed two writ petitions challenging orders dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Proper Officer/State Tax Officer, Ettayapuram. These orders pertained to the tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment with an effective personal hearing. The revenue, represented by the Special Government Pleader, argued that the petitioner was granted three opportunities to appear on 15.12.2022, 26.12.2022, and 05.01.2023, which were not availed. The petitioner admitted to not seeing the intimations, which were reportedly sent through the respondents' portal, and requested one more opportunity.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated 06.01.2023, passed by the respondents, were to be quashed. The Court reasoned that while the respondents claimed to have provided three opportunities for hearing, the petitioner's admission of not seeing the intimations sent via the portal indicated a failure in effective communication or the petitioner's oversight. To uphold the principles of natural justice, which mandate a fair hearing, the Court decided to grant the petitioner one final opportunity. The Court directed the respondents to provide this opportunity and ordered the petitioner to attend the enquiry without seeking any adjournment. The respondents were further directed to conduct the enquiry and pass fresh orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that even if opportunities are formally granted, a failure in effective communication or a genuine oversight by the assessee, leading to non-participation, warrants a fresh opportunity to ensure adherence to natural justice principles before final orders are passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 06.01.2023, passed by the Proper Officer/State Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, were in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting quashing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as they were not afforded an effective personal hearing. They contended that while opportunities were granted, these were not effectively communicated or utilized due to the petitioner failing to notice intimations sent through the respondents' portal. Therefore, the petitioner sought a fresh assessment with a proper opportunity to be heard. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner's claim of violation of natural justice was unfounded, as three opportunities for personal hearing were granted on 15.12.2022, 26.12.2022, and 05.01.2023. The revenue argued that the petitioner failed to avail these opportunities, and thus, the petitioner could not claim a lack of opportunity. The revenue did not rely on any specific statutory provisions or precedents in their argument.