@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Jaichandren, J.@mdashHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate for Taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered dealer, on the files of the second respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is a manufacturer of hydraulic equipments used for various applications. While so, the petitioner had submitted a letter, dated March 6, 2012, seeking clarification, on payment of the applicable fee, for the coconut plucking equipment in question. However, the Commercial Tax Officer, the second respondent herein, had passed the impugned proceedings, dated July 27, 2012, in D. Dis. Acts Cell II/19518/2012, by way of a clarification, stating that the product in question is taxable at 14.5 per cent, under entry 69 of Part C of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated July 27, 2012, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as per rule 12A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that an opportunity of personal hearing would be given to a party asking for clarification, as per rule 12A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, only if the party so desires, as provided under clause (7) of the said rule. He had further submitted that the clarification issued by the second respondent is binding on the petitioner and it is final.
4. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on perusal of records available, it is seen that no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the petitioner before the impugned proceedings had been passed by the second respondent, on July 27, 2012. Therefore, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated July 27, 2012. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent for passing an appropriate order, on the clarification sought by the petitioner, by its letter, dated March 6, 2012, after issuing a notice to the petitioner and by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The second respondent shall pass such an order, as directed by this court, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
