Shree Govind Traders Thr Proprietor vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors

Held

The Court found substantial merit in the Petitioner's submissions. Upon reviewing the impugned order dated March 21, 2025, the Court noted with "shock and dismay" that Respondent No. 1 had failed to address any of the Petitioner's submissions, despite the matter being remanded for de novo consideration. This failure to consider submissions, even in the second round of litigation, was deprecated. The Court held that the impugned order was not a reasoned order and did not comply with the previous court directions. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The proceedings were remanded back to Respondent No. 1 for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass a fresh and reasoned order in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to complete this determination within three months. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open.

Facts

The Petitioner, Shree Govind Traders, engaged in trading M.S. Scrap, received a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 on July 21, 2023, for discrepancies amounting to Rs. 1,48,62,491. After submitting a reply in Form GST ASMT-11, a notice in Form GST DRC-01A was issued on September 6, 2023, seeking the same demand. A show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 followed on January 30, 2024. The Petitioner replied on February 26, 2024, but an order-in-original on March 5, 2024, confirmed the demand. A previous writ petition led to this order being quashed and remanded on August 22, 2024, with directions for a personal hearing and a reasoned order. Despite a personal hearing on February 18, 2025, the Petitioner contends their submissions were ignored, and an impugned order dated March 21, 2025, again confirmed the demand. This led to the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 21, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 1 is a bald and non-speaking order, failing to consider the Petitioner's submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the directions of this Court in its previous order dated August 22, 2024? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning principles of natural justice and adherence to court orders). Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without addressing their submissions made during the personal hearing and in prior replies. They contended that the order was bald and non-speaking, failing to comply with the remand directions from the previous writ petition. Therefore, a fresh hearing was necessary. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, opposed the reliefs but fairly conceded that the proceedings could be remanded for a fresh and reasoned order.