M/S.South India Surgical Company ... vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)
2021 Latest Caselaw 13716 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 13716 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 July, 2021

Madras High Court

M/S.South India Surgical Company ... vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) on 9 July, 2021

                                                                                  W.P. No.10595 of 2013

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 09.07.2021

                                                        CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 W.P.No.10595 of 2013
                                                  & M.P.No.1 of 2013

                     M/s.South India Surgical Company Ltd.,
                     rep. By its Director Vivek Bajaj,
                     No.117/65, Wallajah Road, Anna Salai,
                     Chennai 600 002.                                              ..Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                     The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
                     Chintadripet Assessment Circle,
                     No.62, Cathedral Road,
                     Chennai 600 086.                                              ..Respondent

                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the
                     respondent in CST.34683/2009-10 dated 28.02.2013 and quash the same as
                     illegal, contrary to provisions of the Act and against the principles of natural
                     justice and fair play.


                                       For Petitioner         : Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda

                                       For Respondent         : Mr.V.Veluchamy
                                                               (Government Advocate)

                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                     W.P. No.10595 of 2013



                                                        ORDER

The assessment order passed by the respondent in proceedings

dated 28.02.2013, for the Assessment Year 2009-10, is under challenge in

the present Writ Petition. The petitioner-Company is a registered dealer and

an assessee on the file of the respondent. The petitioner reported their sales

turnover, stock transfer in the monthly returns under the Tamil Nadu Value

Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the TNVAT Act') and the

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

2.The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the assessment order

impugned was passed in violation of Section 22 (4) proviso clause of the

TNVAT Act. The said provision contemplates 'opportunity of being heard'.

However, the respondent has not provided any such opportunity of personal

hearing to the writ petitioner and thus, the principles of natural justice has

been violated.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Selladurai Vs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No.10595 of 2013

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), reported in [2008] 168

Taxman, 111 (Madras) and the relevant paragraph No.6 is extracted

hereunder:

“6.Though learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised several contentions before us, but only one is sufficient to allow the writ appeal. The main contention is that the order, which is impugned in the writ petition, has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Section 263 of the Income-tax Act provides for personal hearing. As already noted, the notice was received by the son-in-law of the appellant, who contacted the appellant in Singapore, who in turn requested him to get one month's time for filing detailed objections. The son-in-law of the appellant sent a petition on 20.03.2006, requesting one months' time for filing objections. Thereafter, the objections came to be filed on 27.03.2006. According to the appellant, his son-in-law was literally forced to file objections on 27.03.2006, and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent. It is not disputed by learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue that no personal hearing was given to the appellant or to his representative. In fact, no date was fixed for hearing and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No.10595 of 2013

the first respondent went on to pass orders without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant.”

4.Further, in the case of Esjyapee Impex (P) Ltd., Vs.

Commercial Tax Officer, Sowcarpet I, reported in [2011] 42 VST 61

(Mad), this Court held that the personal hearing, as contemplated, is the

mandatory requirement to be followed before passing an order of

assessment.

5.The respondent is unable to establish that an opportunity of

personal hearing was provided to the writ petitioner before passing the

impugned assessment order. Therefore, this Court is inclined to remand the

matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration and passing of the

orders.

6.Accordingly, the impugned assessment order, passed by the

respondent in proceedings in CST.34683/2009-10 dated 28.02.2013, is

quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No.10595 of 2013

consideration, by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ

petitioner. In this regard, the respondent is directed to communicate the date

and time of personal hearing to the writ petitioner and the petitioner,