Tvl T T Blue Metal vs. The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to keep the recovery of tax in abeyance, pending further orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This decision was based on an order passed by a Division Bench of the same High Court in a batch of writ petitions. The Division Bench had issued guidelines regarding show-cause notices and directed authorities to keep adjudication pending the Supreme Court's decision on the levy of GST on royalty paid to the Government. The Court noted that the petitioner had approached the court after the impugned order was passed. If the levy is upheld by the Supreme Court, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with recovery. Conversely, if the issue is decided against the revenue, the impugned order will be deemed quashed from the date of the Supreme Court's order. No specific finding was given on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding violation of natural justice or statutory provisions, as the matter was deferred pending the Supreme Court's decision.

Facts

The petitioner, T.T. Blue Metal, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent, the State Tax Officer, Sattur-I Circle. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. They sought to quash the impugned order and requested a fresh assessment after being provided an opportunity for a personal hearing. The writ petition was filed after the impugned order had already been passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 15.06.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing them with a proper opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They also contended that the order was passed in violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner sought to quash the order and have a fresh assessment conducted. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Revenue). However, the court's decision references a Division Bench order and a pending Supreme Court decision on the levy of GST on royalty paid to the Government, suggesting the underlying issue might relate to this contentious point.