Tvl. Sri Maha Co. vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), on the file of the respondent, has filed this writ petition, challenging the assessment order passed by the respondent dated 21.08.2014 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

Two grounds have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the impugned notice, firstly, on the ground that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner and the second ground of attack is by contending that the penalty at 150% has been imposed under Section 27(3) of the Act and in this regard, there was no proposal in the show cause notice.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

On perusal of the show cause notice, dated 28.05.2014, it is evident that there was no proposal made for imposing penalty under Section 27(3) of the Act, therefore, such contention raised by the petitioner merits acceptance. So far as opportunity of personal hearing is concerned, Section 22(4) of TNVAT Act mandates that the dealer should have been heard personally, especially, in a case relating to revision of assessment. This has also not been followed by the respondent while passing the impugned order. Hence, the second ground also merits acceptance.

The decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of V. Selladurai Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) and Another supports the stand taken by the petitioner, wherein, it has been held that when no personal hearing was granted to the Assessee, there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on the above ground, the impugned order calls for interference.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent shall issue a fresh notice setting out the proposal in clear terms, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner is entitled to submit his objection and after hearing the petitioner-in-person, the respondent shall pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.