M/S Vijayalakshmi Trading Company vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned assessment orders. The Court reasoned that to provide a quietus to the issue and enable the petitioners to raise their objections for consideration by the authorities, it was appropriate to permit them to file their explanations. The petitioners were granted two weeks from the date of receiving the order copy to file their objections/explanations. Upon receipt, the respondents were directed to verify these submissions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners were explicitly permitted to raise all contentions previously raised in the writ petitions. The Court also ordered that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioners until this process was completed. It was clarified that if the petitioners failed to avail this opportunity within the stipulated period, the benefit of the order would not apply, and the respondents could proceed as per law based on the original impugned orders. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioners, engaged in custom milling, filed multiple writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by the primary authority under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act. These orders levied GST on custom milling charges. The petitioners contended that while they received show cause notices, they failed to file objections, mistakenly believing their associations had done so. The High Court noted that various other contentions were raised in the petitions. To resolve the issue and allow the petitioners to present their objections, the Court decided to permit them to file their explanations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners should be granted an opportunity to file their objections/explanations against the impugned assessment orders levying GST on custom milling charges, given their submission that they failed to do so under the impression that their associations had already filed objections. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that their failure to file objections was due to a misunderstanding and that they should be allowed to present their case before the authorities. They sought to raise all contentions made in the writ petitions before the assessing authority. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue or State regarding the petitioners' failure to file objections or the merits of the levy. The focus of the revenue's participation, as reflected in the judgment, was through the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.