In Murugan Electrical Shops v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), the Madras High Court ruled that the respondent had clearly breached the natural justice norms by denying the right to a personal hearing. The contested assessment orders are therefore invalidated, and the cases must be sent back for new deliberation.
Facts- The petitioner has contested the contested assessment orders on the grounds that they contravene natural justice principles. Admittedly, the notice requesting the petitioner to appear in person for a hearing on February 18, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. was sent to the petitioner by the respondent in the impugned proceedings on February 2, 2021. Yet, as observed from the impugned assessment orders, the date of the personal hearing offered to the petitioner is indicated as 16.02.2020 at 11:30 a.m.
The petitioner claims that on February 18, 2020, during the in-person hearing, he asked for more time to prepare his response. The petitioner claims that the respondent told him that a new notice will be sent to him, notifying him of a new date for a personal hearing. Unfortunately, the respondent did not also give the petitioner a new notice announcing a new date for a personal hearing. Conclusion: It is obvious that the respondent violated the natural justice norms by denying the petitioner access to a personal hearing. Hence, the contested assessment decisions must be overturned, and the respondent must be given another chance to present their case on the merits and in compliance with the law.
The impugned assessment decisions dated 29.04.2021 and 27.04.2021 passed in regard to the assessment years 2011–12 through 2015–16 have been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that they violate the natural justice principles. Under the terms of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the TNVAT Act, 2006), penalties of Rs. 9,84,377, Rs. 12,96,897, Rs. 13,91,919, Rs. 15,94,266 and Rs. 10,08,618 have been assessed against the petitioner. 2. It is true that the notice requesting the petitioner to appear in person for a hearing on February 18, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. was sent to the petitioner by the respondent in the impugned proceedings on February 2, 2021.
However, as can be seen from the contested assessment orders dated 29.04.2021 and 27.04.2021, the petitioner was given a personal hearing date and time of 16.02.2020 at 11:30 a.m. 3. The petitioner claims that on February 18, 2020, he arrived in person for the hearing as instructed in the respondent’s notice of February 2, 2021. The petitioner claims that on February 18, 2020, during the in-person hearing, he asked for more time to prepare his response. The petitioner claims that the respondent told him that a new notice will be sent to him, notifying him of a new date for a personal hearing. Yet, it has been seen from the challenged orders that the petitioner was given a personal hearing on February 16, 2020, even though this was actually February 18, 2020. The contested assessment orders were issued on April 29, 2021, and April 27, 2021. 4. The respondent failed to specify in the contested assessment orders that the petitioner was only given a personal hearing on February 18, 2020, not February 16, as stated in the contested assessment orders. Additionally, the respondent did not give the petitioner a new notice informing them of a new date for a personal hearing.
The respondent has gone ahead and passed the contested assessment orders dated 29.04.2021 and 27.04.2021, without providing the petitioner with a personal hearing to allow the petitioner to submit objections regarding the imposition of a penalty under the TNVAT Act, 2006. 5. It is obvious that the respondent breached the norms of natural justice by denying the petitioner access to a personal hearing. Hence, the contested assessment decisions must be overturned, and the respondent must be given another chance to present their case on the merits and in compliance with the law. 6. This Court believes it appropriate to set the next day for the petitioner’s in-person meeting with the respondent as March 14, 2023, and on that date, the petitioner must consistently appear before the respondent at 10:30 a.m. 7.
For the aforementioned reasons, the contested assessment decisions from the respondent, dated 29.04.2021 and 27.04.2021, are hereby revoked, and the matter is returned to the respondent for further deliberation on the merits and in accordance with the law. Without fail, the petitioner must appear before the respondent on March 14, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., and they must not request a postponement for any reason. The respondent shall give final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the day of the personal hearing, i.e., from 14.03.2023, after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing on that date and after upholding the principles of natural justice. 8. These Writ Petitions are dismissed with the aforementioned instructions. No fees. Hence, the linked Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Name of the case: Assistant Commissioner (ST) v. Murugan Electrical Shops (Madras High Court)
W.P.Nos. 767, 769, 770, 772, and 773 of 2022 are the appeal numbers.
Date of Decision/Order: 20 February 2023
Courts: Every High Court High Court of Madrashttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1020940
