2023 (8) TMI 112 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non-speaking order - Revision Order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act - revision order without issuance of any notice to petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The impugned order has been passed after awaiting for a long period after order dated 16.06.2015 was passed in W.P.No.14652 of 2015 on 16.06.2015 the impugned order has been passed is without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. The impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. The case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are non-consideration of application u/s 84 of TNVAT Act, 2006, violation of principles of natural justice in passing Revision Order u/s 27, challenge of non-speaking order in the impugned order.

Issue 1: Non-Consideration of Application u/s 84 of TNVAT Act, 2006:
The petitioner had filed an application u/s 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 seeking rectification, which was not considered initially. The petitioner approached the Court through a writ petition, resulting in a direction to the respondent to pass an appropriate order on the pending application. However, the Revision Order u/s 27 was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for a speaking order after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner.

Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice in Passing Revision Order u/s 27:
After the Court's order, the respondent issued notices and eventually passed a Revision Order purportedly in compliance with the Court's directive. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the grounds that it was a non-speaking order. The impugned order was found to only reproduce the petitioner's lengthy reply without substantial discussion. The Court observed that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and discussion, merely stating the facts without analysis or justification. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it, remitting the case back to the respondent for a speaking order on merits within a specified timeframe.

Issue 3: Challenge of Non-Speaking Order in the Impugned Order:
The impugned order was challenged by the petitioner on the basis that it was a non-speaking order. The Court analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the impugned order. It was noted that the order primarily reproduced the petitioner's reply without adequate discussion or reasoning. The Court emphasized the importance of a speaking order that provides detailed analysis and justification for the decision taken. As the impugned order failed to meet this standard, it was deemed unsustainable and subsequently quashed. The case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh speaking order within a specified timeframe.