M/S. Sri Balaji Blue Metals vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the issue in this writ petition is covered by a Division Bench order of the same High Court dated 08.01.2024 in Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam II Assessment Circle, Palladam. Following this precedent, the Court had previously disposed of similar writ petitions. The operative part of the previous order directed the respondent to keep recovery in abeyance pending further orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the levy is upheld by the Supreme Court, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with recovery. Conversely, if the issue is decided against the revenue by the Supreme Court, the impugned order shall be deemed quashed from the date of the Supreme Court's order. This writ petition was disposed of in line with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Sri Balaji Blue Metals, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.06.2023, issued by the respondent, The State Tax Officer. The order pertains to GST No.33BMOPS5763H1ZI/2018-19. The petitioner sought to quash this order on grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of natural justice. The court noted that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench order of the same High Court in the case of Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam II Assessment Circle, Palladam, dated 08.01.2024. Following this precedent, the court had previously disposed of similar writ petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.06.2023, issued by the respondent, is illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice, warranting quashing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order should be quashed on grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of natural justice. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were cited by the petitioner in the provided text. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision was based on a precedent set by a Division Bench of the same High Court.