Telangana High Court
M/S Yash Resources Recycling Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner St Ii on 25 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.32820 of 2024
ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J)
Sri A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondents
2. With the consent finally heard.
3. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the Assessment Order dated 24.06.2023 (Annexure-P11) which was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate order dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure-P17) is also called in question.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised singular contention. He submits that during the search, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.4,73,36,680/-. The tax liability determined by the authority along with interest and penalty comes to Rs.16,98,94,028/-. By taking this Court to the appellate order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner raised a specific ground which is reproduced by learned appellate authority that the amount of Rs.4,73,36,680/- be adjusted against the determination of tax etc. Learned appellate authority has not assigned any reason whatsoever as to why this amount should not be adjusted. By drawing analogy from Section 73(5) of the 2 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amount should have been adjusted while determining the liability against the petitioner. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in VVF (INDIA) LTD. v. State of Maharashtra 1 and the judgment of Bombay High Court in Vinod Metal v. State of Maharashtra 2.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax supported the impugned order. However, on a specific query from the Bench, no finding from the appellate order could be pointed out which shows the application of mind of learned appellate authority on the aforesaid singular contention of petitioner regarding its claim for adjustment of pre-deposit amount while entertaining and deciding the appeal.
6. In our considered opinion, the point raised by the petitioner was ponderable and determination of it will certainly have impact on the liability. This will also have a financial impact on the petitioner. Since the appellate order is silent on it and specific contention of the petitioner although reproduced but not dealt with, the appellate order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusions (see Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan 3). In the absence of binding reasons, conclusion of learned appellate authority cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. It was the minimum expectation from the learned appellate authority to deal with a point raised by the petitioner by assigning some justifiable reason, more so 1 (2023) 4 Centax 421 (S.C .) 2 (2023) 153 taxmann.com 322 (Bombay) 3 (2010) 9 SCC 496 3 when such point raised by the petitioner is reproduced in the appellate order.
7. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 of learned appellate authority is set aside. The matter is remitted back to learned appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner agreed to appear before the learned appellate authority on 02.12.2024 for which no separate notice will be required to be issued to the petitioner. Learned appellate authority shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously.
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
________________ SUJOY PAUL, J _______________ K. SARATH, J Date: 25.11.2024 Myk/Tsr