Case Law Details
Styline Exports Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) (MADRAS High Court)
The case of Styline Exports Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) at the Madras High Court revolves around the issuance of assessment orders under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). The petitioner, Styline Exports, challenged these orders on the grounds that they were issued without prior notice, rendering them unsustainable. The High Court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements in tax assessments.
In these writ petitions, Styline Exports contested the rectification orders dated 06.02.2023, which were issued without providing notice to the petitioner. The initial assessment orders were dated 27.12.2018, and the petitioner had filed rectification applications on 15.03.2022. However, the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) proceeded to issue orders without notifying Styline Exports, which led to the filing of the writ petitions.
The counsel for Styline Exports argued that the rectification orders were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as no notice was served to the petitioner before the issuance of these orders. This lack of notification deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to present their case, making the orders procedurally flawed.
C.Harsha Raj, the learned Additional Government Pleader, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent but did not provide substantial justification for the lack of notice to the petitioner.
Upon reviewing the materials on record, the Madras High Court concurred with the petitioner’s contention. The Court observed that the issuance of rectification orders without prior notice to the petitioner violated the statutory requirements under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act and the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that procedural fairness necessitates giving the affected party a reasonable opportunity to be heard before passing any orders that might adversely affect their interests. The absence of such notice rendered the rectification orders unsustainable.
The Madras High Court set aside the impugned rectification orders and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter. The respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, including a personal hearing, before issuing any fresh orders. Furthermore, any recovery measures, including attachment pursuant to the impugned orders, were also set aside. The writ petitions were disposed of on these terms, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements and ensuring fairness in tax adjudication processes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By these two writ petitions, orders issued under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 are challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not put on notice before such orders were issued. Assessment orders dated 27.12.2018 were issued. In relation thereto, the petitioner filed rectification applications on 15.03.2022. Orders came to be passed without issuing notice to the petitioner on 06.02.2023. These writ petitions were filed in the said facts and circumstances.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned orders and pointed out that such orders were issued without notice to the petitioner.
3. Mr. C. Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent.
4. On examining the materials on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the rectification orders were issued without putting the petitioner on notice is liable to be accepted. Therefore, these orders are not sustainable.
5. For reasons set out above, the impugned rectification orders are set aside and these matters are remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the impugned rectification orders have been set aside, any recovery measures, including attachment, pursuant thereto are also set aside.
6. These writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
