M/S.Lily Trading And Co vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had not filed objections and relevant records before the Assessing Authority and that an appeal provision was available. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court did not quash the impugned order directly. Instead, it directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks of receiving the order, upon depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellate authority was directed to consider this appeal on merits, without insisting on the limitation period, within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Lily Trading & Company, a registered dealer, claimed input tax credit on purchases for the assessment year 2011-12. Following an inspection by Enforcement Wing officials, the 2nd respondent (Commercial Tax Officer) issued a revision notice. The petitioner filed objections, but the 2nd respondent passed an order without considering them or providing a personal hearing. The petitioner appealed to the 1st respondent (Appellate Deputy Commissioner), who partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Assessing Authority's order on several issues and remanding them back with specific directions. These directions included cross-verification with other dealers and further verification. However, the petitioner alleges that the Assessing Authority passed a fresh order without complying with these directions and without adhering to principles of natural justice. The petitioner is before the High Court seeking to quash this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 2nd respondent violated the principles of natural justice by passing an order without considering the petitioner's objections and without providing a personal hearing, contrary to the directions of the Appellate Authority? 2. Whether the 2nd respondent failed to comply with the specific directions of the Appellate Authority, including cross-verification with other dealers and further verification, before passing the impugned order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent acted unlawfully and in violation of the principles of natural justice by issuing the impugned order without considering their objections and without affording an opportunity for personal hearing and cross-examination of other dealers, as directed by the Appellate Authority. They contended that the fresh order passed after remand was contrary to the Appellate Authority's specific directions. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the judgment notes that the petitioner also contributed by not filing objections and relevant records, and that an appeal provision was available to the petitioner.