2018 (10) TMI 1149 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - Validity of assessment order - case of petitioner is that without considering this report, the same authority has now passed the present impugned order, raising demands - Held that - Admittedly, there is no whisper as to the objections of the petitioner, production of records, its perusal, earlier deviation report or anything. It is just like a one line order, objections received; perused; and not satisfied - Though the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Court time and again insisted on the requirement of recording reasons and the quasi judicial authorities to pass a speaking order, the same is not scrupulously followed by the authorities. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash impugned orders in TNGST Nos. 5562514/2004-05 and 5562514/2005-06 and direct respondent to pass fresh orders after considering deviation reports.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a firm involved in the business of erection of lifts, filed returns for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, which were accepted. However, Enforcement Wing officials notified defects, leading to pre-revision notices in 2007. After the petitioner responded with objections and records, a deviation proposal was partly accepted, followed by the impugned assessment orders. Petitioner argued that the detailed enquiry report stating no deviation was not considered in the final orders, urging for setting aside the orders.

The respondent defended the orders, stating that the deviation proposal was partially allowed, and the remaining part was to be verified. Based on available documents and petitioner's representation, the impugned orders were passed. The court noted that the respondent initially decided to drop the proposal but proceeded further after higher authorities' directions, emphasizing the need for a thorough independent decision-making process.

However, the court found the impugned orders lacking in proper reasoning and detailed analysis. Citing the importance of recording reasons for decisions, the court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the necessity for quasi-judicial authorities to pass speaking orders. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

The court directed the respondent to schedule a specific hearing date within two weeks, allowing the petitioner to present their contentions. Subsequently, the respondent was instructed to pass reasoned orders purely on merits within four weeks. The court clarified that it had not delved into the case's merits, leaving it to the respondent's discretion to decide in accordance with the law. Non-cooperation by the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings was to be duly recorded by the respondent for further action.

In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of without costs, with the connected miscellaneous petitions closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing detailed reasons for decisions and the necessity for quasi-judicial authorities to issue speaking orders to ensure transparency and fairness in the decision-making process.