Amco Batteries Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

per the direction of the court, the petitioner subsequently filed a petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, enclosing all relevant details in support of their case. Despite being offered a personal hearing, the petitioner did not appear on the scheduled date due to preoccupation with GST transition issues. Consequently, the respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the rectification petition filed by the petitioner.

In response, the petitioner, through their counsel, now asserts that they were unable to attend the personal hearing due to prior engagements related to GST transition but assures that they would avail themselves for a hearing if given another opportunity, providing relevant documents to support their case.

The government advocate argues that the petitioner’s failure to utilize the initial opportunity for a personal hearing should preclude them from challenging the impugned order.

The court notes that the original assessment order had been challenged previously and directs the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the Act. However, due to their absence at the personal hearing, the rectification petition was rejected. The petitioner now seeks a refund of excess tax paid, along with interest, from a specific date.

Having considered the arguments from both sides and examining the case materials, the court deliberates on whether the petitioner’s absence at the personal hearing justifies the rejection of their rectification petition. It acknowledges the petitioner’s explanation regarding their absence but also weighs the importance of adhering to procedural requirements.

The court may further examine whether the petitioner’s reasons for non-appearance were justified and if granting another opportunity for a personal hearing would be equitable. Additionally, it may consider the merits of the rectification petition and whether the excess tax paid by the petitioner warrants a refund.

Ultimately, the court must decide whether to grant the petitioner’s request for a mandamus directing the respondent to refund the excess tax paid, taking into account all relevant factors and legal principles.

The case revolves around a writ petition challenging the rejection of a rectification petition by the respondent, which was primarily due to the petitioner’s absence during a personal hearing and failure to submit further objections and documents. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus for the refund of excess tax amounting to Rs. 85,13,407, with interest from a specific date.

The court reviewed the arguments from both parties and examined the documents presented. It noted that for the assessment year 2013-2014, an assessment order was challenged previously, resulting in directions for the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. This petition was to include all relevant details and allow for a personal hearing, with a subsequent order to be issued by the respondent within two weeks.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed the petition as directed, but failed to appear for the personal hearing, leading to the issuance of the impugned order by the respondent. The petitioner now claims that their absence was due to preoccupation with GST transition issues. They express willingness to attend a hearing if given another opportunity.

The government advocate argues that the petitioner’s failure to utilize the initial opportunity for a personal hearing cannot be overlooked.

The court acknowledges that the original order of assessment was challenged previously, with directions for a rectification petition under Section 84 and a subsequent hearing. However, as the petitioner failed to utilize this opportunity due to GST transition issues, the court believes that providing another chance would enable a proper decision based on merits and in accordance with the law.

Regarding the refund, the court highlights that a previous order was issued directing the respondent to issue a refund voucher. If this order has not been complied with, the petitioner should seek remedy through appropriate proceedings rather than seeking another mandamus.

In conclusion, the court grants the petitioner liberty to pursue the remedy as deemed appropriate, while emphasizing the need for compliance with previous orders regarding the refund.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:                         

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: