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

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in light of a previous order passed by a Division Bench of the same court in a batch of writ petitions, specifically in the case of Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam II Assessment Circle, Palladam. The earlier order provided guidelines concerning show cause notices and directed authorities to keep pending orders in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides on the levy of GST on royalty paid to the government. In the present case, the petitioner approached the court after the impugned order was passed. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to keep the recovery of tax in abeyance pending further orders from the Supreme Court. If the levy is upheld by the Supreme Court, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with recovery. If the Supreme Court decides against the revenue, the impugned order shall be deemed quashed from the date of the Supreme Court's order. No specific finding was given on the violation of natural justice or statutory provisions as the matter was disposed of based on the pending Supreme Court decision.

Facts

The petitioner, T.T. Blue Metal, represented by its partner, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.06.2023 passed by 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 order and requested the respondent to re-do the assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner approached the High Court after the order was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 15.06.2023, passed by the State Tax Officer, Sattur-I Circle, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without affording them a proper opportunity of being heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They also contended that the order contravened statutory provisions. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondents (The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) and The State Tax Officer) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their participation in the proceedings implies a defense of the impugned order.