2016 (5) TMI 181 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking directions for the respondent to verify the books of accounts of the petitioner and consider the objections with an independent mind without being influenced by the VSI proposals/directions of the third respondent or any of his higher officers - Held that - on reading of impugned order it is clear that the first respondent had passed the order without applying his mind and erroneously held that as though the petitioner had admitted before the Inspecting Officer. When the petitioner had raised objections in the reply the first respondent should not have passed such an order. Therefore the order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge impugned proceedings and orders, specifically related to ITC reversal, requesting fresh consideration by the first respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed Writ Petitions seeking relief against the impugned proceedings of the first respondent regarding the reversal of ITC. The petitioner requested the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned orders dated 31.03.2015 and direct the first respondent to verify the books of accounts and consider objections independently. The petitioner contended that the first respondent erroneously held that the petitioner had admitted the ITC reversal before the Inspecting Officer, despite objections raised. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of the objections, indicating a lack of application of mind by the first respondent.

The learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents acknowledged the error in the first respondent's decision and suggested setting aside the impugned order for fresh consideration. The Court observed that the impugned order dated 31.03.2015 was passed without due consideration, as the petitioner's objections were not appropriately addressed. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh decision. The first respondent was directed to reconsider the case, taking into account the objections raised by the petitioner and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.

The Court disposed of both Writ Petitions with no costs, allowing the petitioner to submit additional objections within two weeks. The first respondent was instructed to decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the previous observations made in the impugned order. The judgment emphasized the importance of a fair and unbiased reconsideration of the case by the first respondent, ensuring that the petitioner's objections are duly considered in the decision-making process.