Sri Saravana Electricals, Represented by its Proprietrix S.Uma Sundari V. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle

WP(MD)/1521/2013

AI Insights

The case involves M/s.Sri Saravana Electricals, represented by its proprietrix S.Uma Sundari, challenging the proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. The petitioner argued that the orders were arbitrary, illegal, and violated the principles of natural justice, particularly because the respondent failed to grant a requested personal hearing and contradicted earlier acknowledgments of received documents. The respondent contended that the detailed replies from the petitioner were sufficient for decision-making, thus negating the need for a personal hearing. The court, referencing a prior judgment and departmental circular, found in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the statutory right to a personal hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691845 (HC-MADURAI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: STC Projects P.Ltd vs. CCT (Mad)
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax 2006
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K CHELLAPANDIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A THIYAGARAJAN
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Illegal; Personal hearing; Profit and loss account; Violative of Principles of Natural Justice; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 21(4)

Judgement Text

"1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.11.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)Nos.1521 to 1524 of 2013 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions M/s.Sri Saravana Electricals, Represented by its Proprietrix S.Uma Sundari, Muthu Building, A.M.M.Arunachalam Nagar, Theni Main Road, Madurai-625 016. ... Petitioner in all WPs Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, Madurai-20. ... Respondent in all WPs Prayer in all Writ Petitions : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in TIN:33945162836 dated 29.11.2012 for the assessment years 2006-07; 2007-08; 2008-09 and 2009-10 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for M/S.S.KARUNAKAR, For Respondent : Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.Sathishkumar, AGP C O M M O N O R D E R These writ petitions have been filed by M/s.Sri Saravana Electricals, represented by its Proprietrix S.Uma Sundari, Madurai, challenging the proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, Madurai, respondent herein, in respect of the assessment years 2006-07; 2007-08; 2008-09 and 2009-10 to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, on the ground that when the petitioner on receipt of revised revision notice dated 21.09.2012 submitted a detailed explanation on 22.10.2012 making a specific request to grant a personal hearing to explain the case of the petitioner before the respondent, an erroneous order was passed on 29.11.2012 stating that the petitioner has not even filed a profit and loss account before the authority when the same was also filed before the Income-Tax Department. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Pointing out the mistake crept in the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is the admitted case of the respondent that the profit and loss account for the assessment years 2006-07; 2007-08; 2008-09 and 2009-10 were placed before the department and the same were also duly considered by the respondent, however, in the later part of the same order, the respondent has taken a contradictory stand that the audited profit and loss account filed to the Income-Tax department was not filed by the dealers for rectification. He further submitted that when the petitioner has admittedly filed the profit and loss account for the assessment years 2006-07; 2007-08; 2008-09 and 2009-10, it is not open to the respondent to take a different stand, however as this problem could have been avoided had the respondent considered the genuine request of the petitioner for grant of personal hearing when Section 21(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax 2006 makes it mandatory for grant of personal hearing and the legal position has also been settled by this Court reported in [2010] 33 VST 333 (Mad) in the case of STC Projects P.Ltd vs. CCT (Mad), the respondent cannot refuse to grant the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 3. Adding further, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even after the judgment passed by this Court in the above mentioned case and Circular 17 which contemplates grant of personal hearing to the parties, the respondent has erroneously passed the impugned order, refusing to grant personal hearing to the petitioner. On this basis, he prayed for only a direction to the respondent to grant personal hearing to the petitioner in the light of the above said judgment followed by circular issued by the department, granting such personal hearing. 4. In reply, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent would submit that when the respondent has passed a detailed order, the question of granting personal hearing again does not arise. The reason being that when notice was given on 30.12.2011 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, a detailed reply was given by the petitioner on 04.04.2012. Finding no merits in the explanation, a revised revision notice dated 21.09.2012 was issued, for which, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 22.10.2012. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. It may be mentioned at the outset that the contention of the respondent that only considering the earlier reply given by the petitioner on 04.04.2012 read with the latest reply given by the petitioner on 22.10.2012, the impugned order has been passed, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 therefore, the question of again giving one more chance of personal hearing does not arise, cannot be accepted by this Court when the mandate of Section 21(4) is very clear that no final order can be passed without there being any fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, hence, the respondent cannot go against the statutes. In this context, when the matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of STC Projects P.Ltd (supra), what was contemplated under Section 27(2) has been reiterated. Again, accepting the said stand a circular also has been issued by the department. When the circular states that before passing a final order, an opportunity of personal hearing is required to be given to the petitioner, unfortunately, the ruling of this Court in the above mentioned case also has not been followed. Moreover, the direction given in the department circular also has been unfortunately overlooked, therefore, this Court by setting aside the impugned order, directs the respondent to grant personal hearing to the petitioner by issuing proper notice. On receiving such notice, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent and thereafter, the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, Madurai-20. +4 ccs to M/s.S.Karunakar, Advocate, SR.Nos.53867,53868,53869&53870 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.54161 NB2 RL/7c – 25/11/2013 W.P(MD)Nos.1521 to 1524 of 2013 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions 05.11.2013 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "