Tvl. Nataraja Oil Mills (P) LTD. vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 06.02.2023 was a non-speaking order, failing to consider the detailed objections and supporting documents submitted by the petitioner. The Court found that the respondent's conclusion that the dealer's replies were not convincing and not supported by valid documentary evidence, without elaborating on why, demonstrated a mechanical application of mind and a disregard for the principles of natural justice and the previous order of this Court. The Court noted that the respondent's order did not reflect that the petitioner's objections were heard and considered. Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned order. The Court directed the respondent to reconsider the objections already submitted by the petitioner along with the documents, pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, and ensure the order reflects that the objections were heard and considered. The petitioner was also instructed to resubmit their books of accounts. The entire exercise was to be completed within eight weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Nataraja Oil Mills (P) Ltd., a manufacturer and trader, challenged an order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Melur Assessment Circle. The petitioner was assessed under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) for the year 2011-12. Their assessment for this period was deemed completed on 31.10.2012. However, following an inspection by the Enforcement Wing in November 2012, proposals were made to re-open the assessment, levy tax, and penalty. A previous revision order dated 17.09.2018 was quashed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.21834 of 2018, remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner appeared for a personal hearing on 11.01.2023 and submitted detailed objections with supporting documents. Despite this, the respondent passed a brief, non-speaking order, which is now under challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.02.2023, passed by the respondent, is a speaking order that considers the objections and documents submitted by the petitioner, as mandated by principles of natural justice and the previous order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.21834 of 2018? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order is non-speaking, mechanical, and displays a non-application of mind. They argued that their objections, supported by documentary evidence such as delivery challans, profit and loss accounts, balance sheets, and credit notes, were not properly considered. They relied on Entry 68 of Part-B of the Fourth Schedule to the TNVAT Act, which exempts certain purchases. The petitioner asserted that the respondent failed to verify their books of accounts and conduct an independent enquiry. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the Government Advocate, argued that the books of accounts were not produced. However, this was refuted by the petitioner.