Tvl. Matha Steels vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Matha Steels, a dealer in ferrous scraps, filed multiple writ petitions challenging orders dated 09.03.2023 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer. These orders pertained to the tax periods from 2017-2018 to 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed without considering the documents they submitted and without conducting an independent inquiry. They further argued that the orders were non-speaking. The dispute arose after an inspection by the intelligence wing officials on 23.02.2022, which alleged defects in tax calculations. The petitioner had attended personal hearings on 18.01.2023, 08.02.2023, and 21.02.2023, and submitted objections on 29.12.2022 via FORM DRC-06.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders dated 09.03.2023 were indeed non-speaking and demonstrated a clear non-application of mind by the respondent. The Court observed that despite the petitioner submitting documents and attending personal hearings, the respondent's orders failed to refer to these submissions. Instead, the orders stated that no documentary evidence was produced, which contradicted the petitioner's claim of having uploaded objections in FORM DRC-06. The Court found that the operative portion of the orders was vague and did not reflect a proper consideration of the petitioner's case. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders dated 09.03.2023, passed by the respondent, are non-speaking and demonstrate a non-application of mind, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to consider the documents and objections submitted by them, despite personal hearings being held. They contended that the operative portion of the orders merely acknowledged the objections and hearings without detailing how they were addressed, indicating a lack of independent application of mind and making the orders non-speaking. They relied on the fact that they had uploaded documents in FORM DRC-06 and attended multiple personal hearings. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent.
Sections Cited
FORM DRC-06
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The present writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the respondent dated 09.03.2023 on the ground that the orders have been passed without taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner and without conducting an independent enquiry. That apart, the petitioner would submit that the orders in question are non-speaking orders.
It is the case of the petitioner that they are dealers in ferrous scraps and an assessee on the file of the respondent registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner's place of business was inspected by the intelligent wing officials on 23.02.2022 and at the time of inspection, the Inspecting Officers had alleged various defects in the calculation of tax and other amounts for the assessment years from 2017-2018 to 2021-2022. The petitioner was asked to make the payment, which they have refused and they had sought time for making _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.13248 to 13252 of 2023 their explanation. The statement was obtained from the petitioner and without verifying books of accounts and other documents and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the Inspecting Officers had arrived at a huge tax demand for the five assessment years without considering the documents submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent has also followed the same and has passed the orders without considering the documents submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner, while uploading the same on the GST portal on 29.12.2022, had sought for personal hearing and had thereafter, attending the personal hearings on 18.01.2023, 08.02.2023 and 21.02.2023. Despite the same, the impugned orders have come to be passed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
A mere perusal of the impugned orders would clearly substantiate the contention of the petitioner that there is a total non-application mind and the orders are non speaking one. Despite the fact that the petitioner had submitted the documents, the respondent has not referred to the same and on the contrary, has stated that no _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.13248 to 13252 of 2023 documentary evidence has been produced totally overlooking the objections and the documents uploaded in FORM DRC-06 on 29.12.2022. The operative portion of the orders simply reads as follows:- “in view of the above and by considering the objections filed by the taxable person vide letter dated 29.12.2022 and by attending to the personal hearing (3 occasions) in person, order is now passed for the years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22”
It is clearly evident that the same is a non-speaking one and there is an absolute non-application of mind on the part of the respondent. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 09.03.2023 passed by the respondent is set aside and the matters are remitted back for fresh consideration. The respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 08.06.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.13248 to 13252 of 2023 To The State Tax Officer, Thiruparankundarm Assessment Circle, Madurai. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.13248 to 13252 of 2023 P.T.ASHA, J. cp W.P.(MD) Nos.13248 to 13252 of 2023
Dated: 08.06.2023 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.