9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 576 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxNon-speaking order - allegation that the respondent No.2, without considering any of the points raised by the petitioner in its reply, proceeded to pass a non-speaking order - HELD THAT - Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Chintan Dave could not justify in any manner that the impugned order is a reasoned order or that it was not a non-speaking order - Law is well settled that a non-speaking order suffers from arbitrariness which goes to the root of the matter and as such, alternative remedy may not come in the way of this Court in entertaining this petition. The impugned order dated 3rd June, 2020 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
Issues: Quashing of show cause notice and order passed by Commercial Tax Officer.
Analysis: 1. The writ petition sought the quashing of a show cause notice and an order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The High Court noted that while several grounds were raised in the petition, the matter could be decided on a specific point. 2. It was acknowledged that a statutory appeal could be filed against the order dated 3rd June, 2020, under Section 73(1) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. However, the Court highlighted the failure of the respondent to consider the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner against the show cause notice issued on 14th October, 2019. 3. The Court emphasized that the impugned order was non-speaking and lacked reasoning, which rendered it arbitrary. The Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent failed to justify the order's validity. The Court clarified that the existence of an alternative remedy did not preclude it from entertaining the petition due to the fundamental flaw in the order. 4. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the order dated 3rd June, 2020. The respondent was directed to issue a fresh order in strict compliance with the law, providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case. The Court mandated that the new order must be reasoned and address all grounds and issues raised by the petitioner, with a deadline of three months from the date of the Court's order for its issuance.
|
