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
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
(2023) 4 Centax 421 (S.C .)
(2023) 153 taxmann.com 322 (Bombay)
(2010) 9 SCC 496
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
