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

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in light of a Division Bench order dated 08.01.2024 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 Division Bench order provided guidelines concerning show cause notices and directed that pending orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the reference relating to the levy of GST on royalty paid to the Government, such adjudications should be kept in abeyance. The Court noted that in this case, the petitioner had approached the court after the impugned order was passed. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to keep the recovery of the tax demand 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 decided against the revenue, the impugned order shall be deemed quashed from the date of the Supreme Court's order. The issue of violation of natural justice and statutory provisions was not directly decided on merits but was addressed through the direction to keep the proceedings in abeyance.

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 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 a fresh assessment after being provided an opportunity for a personal hearing. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2020-21. 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, 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 Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of natural justice and statutory provisions, and sought a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. They relied on the principles of natural justice, which mandate an opportunity of being heard before an adverse order is passed. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's decision references a Division Bench order and a pending Supreme Court decision, indicating that the respondents' actions were likely in line with existing departmental procedures or interpretations of law.