HERBAL SUPPLEMENTS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the four writ petitions, the petitioner, who is the registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act has challenged the orders of the assessment for the years 2009 -2010, 2010 -11, 2011 -12 and 2012 -13. The petitioner was issued notice on 26.6.2014 for all four assessment years stating that on verification of the returns filed and several defects were found. Therefore, the Assessment Officer proposed to reject the returns filed by the petitioner as incorrect and incomplete and to finally determine the total taxable turnover to the list of its judgment under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act and the petitioner was directed to file written objections as against the proposals with recorded proof in support and was also given an opportunity for personal hearing as provided under Section 22(4) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act 2006 and directed the petitioner to appear in person or through an Authorised Representative before the under -signed on 23.06.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections on 27.8.2014 raising various contentions on facts and requested to drop further proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner requested for adjournment for the personal hearing fixed by the authority. The request made by the petitioner was accepted and the personal hearing was adjourned. Even on the adjourned date, the petitioner did not appear before the authority. Therefore, the authority proceeded on the basis of the written objections and confirmed the proposal given in the notice and has demanded the balance tax payable. Challenging the orders on demand, these writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of Section 22(2), the petitioner is deemed to have been assessed on 30.6.2012 and if at all, when the proceedings are re -opened invoking the power under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, the question of revision of assessment does not arise and it is without jurisdiction. However, it is submitted that opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory and the failure to afford an opportunity of personal hearing is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore, the petitioner, challenged the orders of assessment by way of all these writ petitions.

(3.) HEARD the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.