The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Fac),Arakkonam Assessment Circle,Arakkonam v. Chief Commissioner Ofincome-Tax (Osd) And Another) And Further Direct The Respondent Topass Orders Afresh In Accordance With Law After Grant Of Enquiry Andoppor

Sri Balaji EnterprisesRepresented by is ProprietorR.Karthikeyan The Deputy Commercial tax Officer (FAC),Arakkonam Assessment Circle,Arakkonam. .. Respondent PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to issue an order of Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, to call for records on the files of the respondent inTIN.33264303014/2012-13 dated 5.2.2015 and quash the same as beingcontrary to the principles of natural justice and that of theprinciple laid down by this Honourable Court in the judgment reportedin (2007) 295 ITR 303 (Mad) (V.Selladurai Vs. Chief Commissioner ofIncome-Tax (OSD) and another) and further direct the respondent topass orders afresh in accordance with law after grant of enquiry andopportunity and pass further orders. This writ petition has been directed against the impugnedorder passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), ArakkonamAssessment Circle, wherein the petitioner has been finally assessedunder the Tamil Nadu Value Added Act to a tax amount of Rs.79,697/-and thereupon the assessing officer has also directed him to pay asum of Rs.79,697/-, with a further direction that the balance tax/compounded amount shall be paid within 30 days from the day ofservice of this notice, indicating therein, failing which the amountwill be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue or fineimposed by the learned Magistrate and the company also will be liableto pay the interest under section 42 of the Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Contending further, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner would submit that when the respondent has come to pass theorder under section 22(4) of the Act, he has to provide anopportunity of hearing, which is mandatory in nature. As thisminimum opportunity has been refused, the impugned order, admittedly,is liable to be interfered. 3. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional GovernmentPleader representing the respondent, also finds no reply to thearguments and to the point raised by the petitioner that there hasbeen violation of principles of natural justice and is unable tosupport the impugned order. 4. In the present case, the respondent has passed theimpugned order under section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act, withoutproviding an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A DivisionBench of this court, in a similar circumstances, in the case ofV.Selladurai Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) and anotherreported in (2007) 295 ITR 303 (Mad), has held that when the statuterequires to grant an opportunity for personal hearing, it is for theauthority who is sitting on the statutory provision requires toadhere to the said conditions, without having any reservation becauseit is a mandatory requirement. In the absence of such anopportunity, of being heard, as contemplated under section 22(4) ofthe TNVAT Act, the impugned order of assessment is liable to be setaside with a direction to re-do the assessment in accordance withlaw, after granting an opportunity of hearing. 5. In the light of the above ratio, as this court has alsonoticed that there is no notice of hearing given to the petitioner,in terms of section 22(4) of the Act, the impugned order is setaside and the matter is directed to be redone by therespondent/ the Assessment Authority, on merits and in accordancewith law. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Thereis no order as to costs. avr/ vrc s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Deputy Commercial tax Officer (FAC),Arakkonam Assessment Circle,Arakkonam. + 1 cc to Mr.R.Senniappan, Advocate sR 22426 + 1 cc to Spl.Govt.Pleader SR 22876 sr(co)prk27/5 W.P. No. 12241 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015