Assessment order passed without affording personal hearing is liable to be quashed

PHA India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assessment Commssioner (ST) (Madras High Court)

Madras High Court held that it is seen from the impugned assessment order that no personal hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Facts- The contention of the petitioner is that the reopening of the assessments u/s. 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 which culminated in the impugned Assessment Orders are barred by law of limitation. According to the petitioner, since their assessments have not been reopened within a period of six years from the date of the deemed assessment u/s. 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, the impugned assessment orders have to be quashed.

According to the petitioner, they did not receive the Show Cause Notice issued by the respondents prior to the passing of the impugned orders to enable them to send a detailed reply. It is also their contention that no personal hearing was afforded to them in the impugned proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to section 27(1) of the TNVAT 2006 and submitted that as per the said section within a period of six years, from the date of the deemed assessment under section 22(2) of the Act, the respondents ought to have reopened the assessment in case of escaped turnover or wrong availment of income tax credit.

Conclusion- The petitioner categorically contends that they never received any Show Cause Notice from the respondents. As seen from the impugned Assessment Orders, no personal hearing has also been afforded to the petitioner. Since the contentions of the petitioner raised in this writ petition have not been considered in the impugned assessment orders and the petitioner has also not been granted personal hearing in the impugned proceedings, necessarily, the impugned assessment orders have to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and the matter has to be remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.