2021 (7) TMI 587 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty - impugned order passed without considering the objections as well as the judgment of the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court - HELD THAT - The petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the 1st respondent on 01.03.2004 and even prior to that, the petitioner submitted his objections on 19.02.2004. Neither the objections filed before issuing the impugned order, nor the representation submitted subsequent to the impugned order are considered by the 1st respondent with reference to the principles already adjudicated and concluded. In view of the efflux of time of more than 17 years, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case with reference to the records available with the respondents. The 1st respondent/ Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-III, Thoothukudi is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 01.03.2004 and by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner and personal appearance, if any request is made, and pass orders on merits, as expeditiously as possible and within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2004
2. Consideration of objections and judgments by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
3. Non-consideration of facts and legal provisions in the representation
4. Directions to consider the representation and pass orders expeditiously

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was the request to quash the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2004. The petitioner sought relief in this regard through a Writ Petition before the High Court.

2. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had passed the impugned order without adequately considering the objections raised by the petitioner and the relevant judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The petitioner had submitted detailed objections on 19.02.2004 and a representation on 01.03.2004, but both were allegedly not taken into account by the 1st respondent.

3. It was contended that the representation submitted by the petitioner contained both factual details and legal provisions that were crucial to the case. However, the petitioner's grievance was that these aspects were not duly considered by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.

4. In light of the above, the High Court directed the 1st respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-III, Thoothukudi, to reconsider the petitioner's representation from 01.03.2004. The officer was instructed to provide an opportunity for the petitioner's personal appearance if requested and to pass orders expeditiously, within twelve weeks from the receipt of the court's order. The petitioner was also asked to submit all relevant documents and judgments relied upon during the proceedings.

5. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with these directions, emphasizing that no costs were to be incurred. Additionally, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a consequence of this judgment.