2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16299
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
M/S.SRI LAXMI TIMBERS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
STATE TAX OFFICER (COLLECT – Respondent
W.A(MD)Nos.1066 & 1067 of 2022
Mr.G.Dhanamadhri, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader
The court upheld the dismissal of writ petitions, emphasizing the importance of utilizing provided opportunities and the reluctance to interfere in fiscal matters without exhausting alternative remedies.
Headnote:(A) Principles of Natural Justice - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural fairness in administrative assessments, noting that the appellant failed to utilize multiple opportunities provided for personal hearings (Paras 4, 10).
(B) Alternative Remedies - The court reiterated that in fiscal matters, it is reluctant to interfere when alternative statutory remedies have not been exhausted (Paras 5, 7).
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged assessment orders for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, claiming a violation of natural justice due to the timing of proceedings during the COVID pandemic and their business closure in 2018.
Findings of Court:
The court found that sufficient opportunities were provided to the appellant, which were not utilized, and upheld the dismissal of the writ petitions.
Issues: The main issues included whether there was a violation of natural justice and if the assessment order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant did not demonstrate a violation of natural justice as multiple opportunities were given, and the assessment order was within the scope of the show cause notice.
Result: Writ Appeals dismissed.
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
The appellant herein filed W.P(MD)Nos.16073 and 16074 of 2021 challenging the assessment orders made by the respondents for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The writ petitions were dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2021 by the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, these Writ Appeals have been filed.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant strongly submitted that there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the appellant had shut down their business in the year 2018 itself. And that is why they prayed for adequate opportunity and time to produce the relevant records. He pointed out that the impugned proceedings took place when the COVID pandemic was at its peak. He placed reliance on the order dated 12.06.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.14407 of 2021 etc batch. A learned Judge of this Court had granted relief to the appellant herein in respect of some other orders without stipulating any condition. The learned counsel requested this Court to adopt the very same approach in this case also.
3.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference.
4.The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions had held as follows:
“9. Insofar as the first ground urged by the petitioner that no opportunity was given, by thus, there has been violation of natural justice is concerned, as discussed above, several opportunities had been given to the petitioner and each and every time either the petitioner has not attended such opportunity or simply attended through the representative and sought for time. The opportunities given by the Assessing Authority were not properly utilized by the petitioner and when final notice was issued, even then, further time was sought for and personal hearing was not attended. Therefore, on 10.12.2020, again notice was issued, for which, on 17.12.2020, the petitioner has given a reply, claimed to have supplied documents. Thereafter, in the said reply dated 17.12.2020, merely because the petitioner sought for or made a request to the Assessing Authority, not to initiate any further action, till the petitioner will have one more personal hearing is concerned, it is an attempt of stretching up of opportunity, which is beyond the scope of personal hearing as, such a personal hearing opportunity was given to the petitioner more than once and without utilising that personal hearing opportunity, the petitioner unilaterally cannot seek for one more personal hearing and make a request to the Assessing Authority, not to initiate further action till the assessee will have one more personal hearing as that is unknown to the procedure being established. Therefore, in these cases, as per records, which have been clearly demonstrated by the Revenue, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, which has either not been properly utilized or they wanted to prolong the assessment process further, for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, the ground of alleged violation of principles of natural justice is not available in these cases.
10.Insofar as the other ground urged by the petitioner that the impugned order has gone beyond the scope of show cause notice is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that, with regard to the goods sold to Sri MRP Enterprises, Pondicherry, it was first time introduced therefore that is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. But the fact remains that, in the show cause notice, three traders namely, Sri Sivaskthi Trade Mart, Pondicherry, Cauvery Saw Mill and Greenwood Trading Company were given and in this regard, the alleged purchase made by the petitioner/assessee from Sri Sivaskthi Trade Mart had been sold to one MRP Enterprises at Pondicherry that is in the same byepass Road at Pondicherry. Both Sri Sivaskthi Trade Mart and Sri MRP Enterprises are located