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

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in light of a Division Bench order dated 08.01.2024 in W.P.No.30974 of 2022 (Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam II Assessment Circle, Palladam). This order provided guidelines regarding show cause notices and directed keeping pending orders in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the issue of levy of GST on royalty paid to the Government. The Court noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court after the impugned order was passed. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to keep the recovery 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 issue is decided 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 merits of the petitioner's claim regarding 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 2nd respondent, the State Tax Officer, Sattur-I Circle. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging gross violation of natural justice and statutory provisions, and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2021-22. The petitioner approached the High Court after the impugned order was passed by the revenue authority.

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? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh assessment after being provided an opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and statutory provisions, and therefore, it should be quashed, and a fresh assessment should be conducted with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner relied on the general principles of natural justice and relevant statutory provisions of the GST Act. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents. However, the disposal of the writ petition was based on a Division Bench order of the same High Court and a pending decision by the Supreme Court.