Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd),Reported In [2008] 168 Taxman, 111 (Madras) And The Relevantparagraph

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM M/s.South India Surgical Company Ltd.,rep. By its Director Vivek Bajaj,No.117/65, Wallajah Road, Anna Salai,Chennai 600 002... Petitioner The Assistant Commissioner (CT),Chintadripet Assessment Circle,No.62, Cathedral Road,Chennai 600 086. .. Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, callingfor the records on the file of the respondent in CST.34683/2009-10 dated 28.02.2013 and quash the same as illegal, contrary toprovisions of the Act and against the principles of naturaljustice and fair play. The assessment order passed by the respondent in proceedingsdated 28.02.2013, for the Assessment Year 2009-10, is underchallenge in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner-Companyis a registered dealer and an assessee on the file of therespondent. The petitioner reported their sales turnover, stocktransfer in the monthly returns under the Tamil Nadu Value AddedTax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the TNVAT Act') andthe Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2.The grievances of the writ petitioner is that theassessment order impugned was passed in violation of Section 22 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (4) proviso clause of the TNVAT Act. The said provisioncontemplates 'opportunity of being heard'. However, therespondent has not provided any such opportunity of personalhearing to the writ petitioner and thus, the principles ofnatural justice has been violated. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on thejudgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the caseof V.Selladurai Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD),reported in [2008] 168 Taxman, 111 (Madras) and the relevantparagraph No.6 is extracted hereunder: “6.Though learned counsel appearing for theappellant raised several contentions before us,but only one is sufficient to allow the writappeal. The main contention is that the order,which is impugned in the writ petition, has beenpassed in violation of the principles of naturaljustice. Section 263 of the Income-tax Actprovides for personal hearing. As already noted,the notice was received by the son-in-law of theappellant, who contacted the appellant inSingapore, who in turn requested him to get onemonth's time for filing detailed objections. Theson-in-law of the appellant sent a petition on20.03.2006, requesting one months' time for filingobjections. Thereafter, the objections came to befiled on 27.03.2006. According to the appellant,his son-in-law was literally forced to fileobjections on 27.03.2006, and thereafter theimpugned order came to be passed by the firstrespondent. It is not disputed by learned standingcounsel appearing for the revenue that no personalhearing was given to the appellant or to hisrepresentative. In fact, no date was fixed forhearing and the first respondent went on to passorders without granting any opportunity ofpersonal hearing to the appellant.” 4.Further, in the case of Esjyapee Impex (P) Ltd., Vs.Commercial Tax Officer, Sowcarpet I, reported in [2011] 42 VST61 (Mad), this Court held that the personal hearing, ascontemplated, is the mandatory requirement to be followed beforepassing an order of assessment. 5.The respondent is unable to establish that an opportunityof personal hearing was provided to the writ petitioner beforepassing the impugned assessment order. Therefore, this Court isinclined to remand the matter back to the respondent for freshconsideration and passing of the orders. 4.Further, in the case of Esjyapee Impex (P) Ltd., Vs.Commercial Tax Officer, Sowcarpet I, reported in [2011] 42 VST61 (Mad), this Court held that the personal hearing, ascontemplated, is the mandatory requirement to be followed beforepassing an order of assessment. 5.The respondent is unable to establish that an opportunityof personal hearing was provided to the writ petitioner beforepassing the impugned assessment order. Therefore, this Court isinclined to remand the matter back to the respondent for freshconsideration and passing of the orders. 6.Accordingly, the impugned assessment order, passed by therespondent in proceedings in CST.34683/2009-10 dated 28.02.2013,is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent forfresh consideration, by affording an opportunity of personalhearing to the writ petitioner. In this regard, the respondentis directed to communicate the date and time of personal hearingto the writ petitioner and the petitioner, without seeking anyadjournment, shall appear before the authority competent andsubmit their objections, explanations, judgments relied on,documents, etc. On receipt of the objections, the respondent isdirected to consider the materials available on record and thepleadings made during the personal hearing and thereafter, passorder on merits and in accordance with law, within a period ofthree months thereafter. With this direction, the Writ Petition stands allowed. Nocosts. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gsa To The Assistant Commissioner (CT),Chintadripet Assessment Circle,No.62, Cathedral Road,Chennai 600 086. +1cc to Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopta, Advocate, S.R.No.32500+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.32696 W.P.No.10595 of 2013 PCH(CO)PM(28/07/2021)