Case Law Details
BRT Spinners Private Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)
In the case of BRT Spinners Private Limited Vs ACIT, the Madras High Court has invalidated a notice that required the petitioner to discharge a tax liability without conducting a hearing on the rectification petition filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. It was observed that notice is in fact an order passed by the assessing officer disposing the additional rectification petition.
The petitioner challenged the ‘notice’ issued by the assessing officer as an order disposing of their additional rectification petition without providing them an opportunity to be heard. The Madras High Court upheld this challenge, ruling that the authority should have issued a proper notice to the petitioner, conducted a hearing, and then made a decision on the request for rectification.
Though no counter has been filed, the learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the Commercial Taxes Department, fairly acknowledged this procedural lapse. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside by the High Court. The notice had demanded the discharge of a tax liability amounting to Rs. 27,739 and Rs. 65,215 in two separate cases as a precondition to considering the rectification petition related to liability for sizing contracts.
The Court directed that the petitioner should be allowed to appear before the authority for a hearing on both the rectification petition and the additional rectification petition. It further ordered that a decision should be made within six weeks from the date of the personal hearing, in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present challenge is to a document styled as ‘notice’ dated 04.05.2023. However, a perusal of the same makes it clear that it is in fact an order passed by the assessing officer disposing the additional rectification petition dated 12.04.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short ‘Act’).
2. Being an order, it was incumbent upon the authority to issue notice to the petitioner, hear it and thereafter dispose the request for rectification of order of assessment dated 30.08.2019. This has not been done and though no counter has been filed in the matter since the matter is listed for admission only today, Mrs. E. Ranganayaki, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepted notice for the Commercial Taxes Department has obtained instructions from the officer and confirms this fact fairly.
3. In light of the same, the impugned notice dated 04.05.2023 is set aside. The notice in conclusion calls upon the dealers to discharge tax liability of a sum of Rs.27,739/- in WP.No.17413 of 2023 and Rs.65,215/- in WP.No.17414 of 2023 with interest, as a pre-condition to the officer considering the rectification petition filed earlier touching upon liability for sizing contracts. tification petition, also filed under Section 84 of the Act is dated 16.03.2023 and is admittedly pending before the officer.
4. In light of the fact that the additional rectification petition dated 12.04.2023 is now pending in light of setting aside of order dated 04.05.2023, the petitioner is permitted to appear before the authority for hearing of both the rectification petition as well as additional rectification petition dated 16.03.2023 and 12.04.2023 respectively on 23.06.2023 at 10.30 a.m. without expecting any notice in this regard to the hearing as scheduled aforesaid. After hearing the petitioner on both the petitions and considering the materials, if any, filed in support of the petitions, let an order be passed within a period of six (6) weeks from date of personal hearing i.e. on or before 04.08.2023 in accordance with law.
5. These writ petitions are disposed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
