Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12185
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI
Tvl. Hotel Jeeva – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner ( – Respondent
The decision affirms that compliance with assessment processes must be demonstrated by the taxpayer, who cannot invoke natural justice if they do not partake in hearings.
Headnote:
Opportunity - Assessment Order - TNVAT Act - Sections 58 - The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair hearing as per natural justice principles and found that the respondent had given sufficient opportunities to the petitioner, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order on the grounds of insufficient hearing opportunities, despite prior mandates from the court. The respondent asserted they offered adequate opportunities for the petitioner to present a case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner prolonged proceedings by failing to attend scheduled hearings. Sufficient opportunities were provided, rendering the claims of natural justice violations invalid.
Issues: Whether the respondent provided adequate opportunities for the petitioner to present their case and comply with assessment requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to comply with assessment and to present their case, thus affirming the authority's decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed for lack of genuine efforts from the petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner is running a Hotel and Lodge at Virudhunagar and also got permission to sell IFML Liquor in his Hotel. He has filed this writ petition as against the order of assessment passed by the respondent dated 26.12.2023 on the sole ground that the respondent has not provided sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as directed by this Court in WP(MD)Nos.15989 to 15991 of 2023, dated 04.07.2023.
2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has already passed an order of assessment on 12.09.2022 and the same was challenged before this Court in WP(MD)Nos.15989 to 15991 of 2023. This court, by order dated 04.07.2023, set aside the earlier assessment order with a direction to the respondent to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of the same, the respondent has issued a notice for personal hearing dated 04.12.2023 fixing the enquiry on
13.12.2023. The petitioner received the said notice on 09.12.2023 and by communication dated 11.12.2023, the petitioner requested for postponing the enquiry by 31 days. The same was not considered by the respondent and no order has been passed. In the meantime, the petitioner has submitted another representation on 19.12.2023. While so, the impugned assessment order has been passed without providing an opportunity and without considering the representation dated 19.12.2023. Therefore, the learned Counsel requested for one more opportunity of personal hearing.
3.He further submitted that the issue with regard to the liability of the petitioner in paying third point sale, when the TASMAC has already paid the taxes to the Government, is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.27666 of 2016, etc., batch.
4.Learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity. However, by one way or the other, the petitioner is dragging on the proceedings. Notice was issued on 04.12.2023 and the same was received by the petitioner on 09.12.2023. The enquiry was fixed on 13.12.2023, however, the petitioner failed to appear for the enquiry and therefore, the respondent has proceeded with the available materials.
5.He further submitted that the earlier assessment order dated
12.09.2022 was set aside by this Court only for providing one more opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the subsequent notice was issued on 04.12.2023. Even for this notice, the petitioner has not responded. He further submitted that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy u/s.58 of the TNVAT Act before the Appellate Tribunal.
6.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the available materials.
7.The petitioner has not filed the returns properly, for which, a pre-
assessment notice was issued on 28.09.2021. The petitioner has filed his reply on 25.10.2021. Thereafter, the respondent has issued further assessment notice on 06.12.2021. For this notice, the petitioner has filed his reply on 15.12.2021 that he was not able to file monthly online returns. The petitioner was given with another opportunity for filing the returns on or before 23.02.2022, by notice dated 10.02.2022. The petitioner has submitted a reply on 18.02.2022 seeking time of one more month for filing the returns that he is not in a position to contact his Auditor. Accordingly, further time was also granted. The petitioner neither filed his returns nor filed any reply. Therefore, the respondent proceeded further and passed the order of assessment on 12.09.2022.
8.This assessment order dated 12.09.2022 was set aside by this Court on the ground that the opportunity of personal hearing was not provided to the petitioner. Therefore, by notice dated 04.12.2023, the petitioner was called-for for enquiry on 13.12.2023. This time, the petitioner claimed that he got held up at Chennai and sought one month time.
9.The conduct of the petitioner appears to be
