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

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in light of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a batch of writ petitions, including Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam II Assessment Circle, Palladam. The Division Bench order provided guidelines regarding show cause notices and directed that orders be kept pending the Supreme Court's decision 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the levy is upheld by the Supreme Court, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with recovery. If the issue is answered against the revenue, the impugned order shall be deemed quashed from the date of the Supreme Court's order. The issue of whether the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice and statutory provisions was not decided on merits but was rendered moot by the direction to keep recovery in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's 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 2nd respondent, the State Tax Officer, Sattur-I Circle. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging violations of natural justice and statutory provisions, and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The impugned order pertains to the GST assessment for the period 2019-20. The petitioner's GSTIN is 33AAPFT4093B1Z6. The writ petition was filed after the impugned order was 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, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh assessment with an opportunity of personal hearing, as prayed for? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and statutory provisions. They sought to quash the order and have a fresh assessment conducted after being provided with a personal hearing. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice, which mandate an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed. Respondents' Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the respondents. However, it refers to a Division Bench order in Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam II Assessment Circle, Palladam, which dealt with show cause notices and keeping orders pending the Supreme Court's decision on the levy of GST on royalty paid to the Government.