M/S. Spl Ccl Jv vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The Court held that the refund rejection order dated February 16, 2022, passed by the first respondent was liable to be set aside. The Court found that the petitioner's submission that their representation dated January 31, 2022, along with supporting documents (output invoice and agreement), was not considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order was not disputed by the revenue. This omission constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the first respondent. The first respondent was directed to pass fresh orders after taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner on January 31, 2022, and in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a refund rejection order dated February 16, 2022, passed by the first respondent. The petitioner contended that a representation made on January 31, 2022, along with copies of an output invoice and agreement, was not considered before the rejection order was issued. The respondents, represented by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, did not dispute this fact. The writ petition sought to set aside the rejection order on grounds of violation of natural justice and ignorance of the record, and to direct the respondent to process the refund application after considering the petitioner's reply and evidence, and affording a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refund rejection order dated February 16, 2022, passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside for gross violation of principles of natural justice and in ignorance of the record? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the refund rejection order was passed without considering the representation made on January 31, 2022, which included an output invoice and agreement. This failure to consider crucial documents amounted to a violation of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax did not dispute the petitioner's assertion that the documents submitted on January 31, 2022, were not taken into consideration.