Shree Govind Traders (Prop. Bhagwandas Jindal) vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 was unsustainable. It found significant merit in the Petitioner's submissions, noting with "shock and dismay" that the Respondent No. 1 had failed to advert to any of the Petitioner's submissions, even after the matter was remanded for de novo consideration by this Court's order dated 22.08.2024. The Court deprecated this approach by the departmental authorities, stating that the Petitioner's submissions had not been considered in the second round of litigation, forcing the Petitioner to approach the Court again. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 and remanded the proceedings back to Respondent No. 1 for de novo consideration. A fresh and reasoned order was to be passed in accordance with law after hearing the parties, with the determination to be completed within three months. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open.

Facts

The Petitioner, Shree Govind Traders, is challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form DRC-01 dated 26.09.2023 and a Rectification Order in Form DRC-08 dated 24.06.2025, both passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. The dispute pertains to the financial year 2017-18 and involves a demand of Rs. 1,48,62,491/-. This is not the first time the Petitioner has approached the High Court. In a previous writ petition concerning FY 2018-19 with similar facts, the Court had quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The Petitioner argues that the current impugned order, like the previous ones, fails to address their submissions, making it a non-speaking order. The Respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, conceded that the proceedings could be remanded for a fresh, reasoned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Rectification Order in Form DRC-08 dated 24.06.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, is a reasoned order that adequately considers the Petitioner's submissions, as required by law and previous court directions? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contends that the impugned order is bald and non-speaking, failing to address the submissions made during the personal hearing and in prior replies dated 21.08.2023 and 26.02.2024. They argue that despite the previous remand by this Court, the Respondent No. 1 has again failed to consider their contentions, necessitating a fresh hearing. They rely on the principle that orders must be reasoned and deal with all submissions. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, through the Additional Government Pleader, opposed the reliefs sought but fairly conceded that the proceedings could be remanded back to the authority for passing a fresh and reasoned order.