Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, J.
Tvl. M.K.Gopi (Civil works Contractor), S-1, Iswarya Jayam, Chennai – Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Royapuram Assessment Circle, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 5875, 5878, 5880, 5881, 5882, 5885 & 5888 of 2019 & W.M.P. Nos. 6715, 6716, 6718, 6722, 6723, 6727 & 6729 of 2019
Decided On : 04-06-2019
For the Petitioner:Manoharan Sundaram, S. Sivakumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Dhanamadhri, Government Advocate (Taxes).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioner to effectively utilize opportunities for filing objections and the communication of changes in address to the Department, as well as the agreement between the parties for the petitioner to submit records subject to depositing 15% of the disputed tax.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Assessment Orders under TNVAT Act - [Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)] - Summary: The court disposed of seven writ petitions challenging assessment orders made by the respondent under the TNVAT Act. The petitioner Assessee was given an opportunity to submit all the records within a prescribed time frame subject to depositing 15% of the disputed tax. The impugned orders were set aside and remanded back to the respondent for assessment afresh.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, engaged in civil contract works, was found to have not reported turnover to the Department by filing monthly returns under the TNVAT Act. The Enforcement Wing officials conducted a surprise inspection, and assessment proceedings commenced. The petitioner expressed difficulty in filing detailed objections and requested time, but the impugned orders were ultimately passed by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not effectively utilized the opportunities given for filing objections. It also noted the change in the petitioner's address and the lack of communication to the Department, leading to a discussion on the violation of principles of natural justice (NJP).
Issues: The pivotal ground on which the impugned Assessment Orders were assailed was the alleged violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner's change of address and communication to the Department were also raised as issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the agreement between the parties, where the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit records subject to depositing 15% of the disputed tax. The court also discussed the petitioner's failure to effectively utilize the opportunities given for filing objections and the communication of the change of address to the Department.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside and remanded back to the respondent for assessment afresh, with the condition that the petitioner Assessee shall deposit 15% of the disputed tax within a week from the date of receipt of the court's order.
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the Order No.TIN 33831282169/2008-09/dt.20.06.2018 passed by the respondent, quash the same and further direct the respondent to pass order afresh.)
1. This common order will dispose of these seven writ petitions. In other words, this common order will given all the aforementioned seven writ petitions.
2. Mr.Manoharan Sundaram, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for the writ petitioner and Ms.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) on behalf of sole respondent are before this Court.
3. Though this matter is listed under the caption ‘ADJOURNED ADMISSION’, by consent of both the learned counsel i.e., counsel for writ petitioner and revenue counsel, these main writ petitions itself are taken up for final disposal, same are heard out and are being disposed of.
4. The subject matter of these writ petitions are common. Seven different proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Royapuram Assessment Circle i.e., sole respondent in these writ petitions, have been called in question in each of these writ petitions.
5. To be noted, all the seven impugned proceedings of the respondent are dated 20.06.2018 and the same shall be referred to as ‘impugned orders’ in plural and ‘impugned order’ in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity.
6. These impugned orders have been made by the respondent under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006), which shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘TNVAT Act’ for the sake of brevity and clarity.
7. Facts, as can be culled out from the case file placed before this Court, are that the writ petitioner is doing civil contract works and is liable to pay monthly returns under TNVAT Act. The Enforcement Wing officials found that the writ petitioner was doing work contracts for Chennai Corporation, but has not reported the turnover to the Department by filing monthly returns. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is liable to file monthly returns under TNVAT Act.
8. The Enforcement Wing officials made a surprise inspection. This ‘Surprise Inspection’ by the Enforcement Wing Officials is being referred to as ‘VSI’.
9. Post VSI by the Enforcement Wing officials, the assessment proceedings commenced, the petitioner Assessee expressed difficulty in filing detailed objections and requested for three months time to file detailed objections along with supporting documents.
10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that though time was sought for and several opportunities were given for filing objections, the same has not been effectively utilized by the petitioner. Ultimately, the aforesaid impugned Orders came to be passed by the respondent.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner, adverting to the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, submitted that the pivotal ground on which the impugned Assessment Orders are assailed is that ‘principles of natural justice’ (‘NJP’ for brevity) have been given a go by. A perusal of the impugned order, viewed in the light of the trajectory of the submissions made today, reveals that the petitioner may not be able to make out a tenable case qua violation of NJP as the petitioner has changed his address and has not intimated the same to the respondent.
12. To be noted, the address as contained in the impugned order reads as follows:
‘FC-Venus Gems
No.86, 5th Cross Street
M.K.B.Nagar
Chennai - 600 036’
The address in the writ petition reads as follows:
‘S-1, Iswarya Jayam
No.39, Raju Street Lane
Ayanavaram, Chennai -600 023’
13. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner had changed his address in the last two years. There is nothing to show that this has been communicated to the Department immediately after change of address.
14. Ultimately, the petitioner sent objections to respondent, which contain
