2022 (9) TMI 1198 - HC - GST

Tax-free animal feed supplement classification dispute remanded for fresh consideration after authority failed to address petitioner's submissions

Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Punjab & others

Punjab and Haryana HC set aside the Appellate Authority's order dated 29.06.2022 in a goods detention case involving tax-free animal feed supplement ... Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - goods are tax free animal feed supplement with HSN 2309 or not - residue/waste of distillery covered under HSN 2303 or not - HELD THAT:- The legality of the order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bathinda raising demand of tax/penalty need not be gone into at this stage. Such view is being taken for the reason that the facts of the case make out a case for remand to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.06.2022 at Annexure P-7 passed by the Appellate Authority would clearly show that the submissions/grounds raised by the petitioner in the statutory appeal have not even been adverted to, much less dealt with. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, as such, cannot sustain. The present writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 29.06.2022 at Annexure P-7 is set aside - The matter is remanded back for consideration afresh at the hands of the Appellate Authority and after taking into account all the submissions and contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal at Annexure P-6. Issues:1. Validity of the order of demand of tax and penalty passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bathinda.2. Legality of the order declining the appeal under Section 107 of the Act passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal), Ferozepur and Faridkot Division at Bathinda.3. Sufficiency of reasoning in the impugned order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority.4. Compliance with the requirement of disclosing reasons in a judicial or quasi-judicial order.Analysis:1. The High Court examined the order of demand of tax and penalty dated 11.01.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bathinda, which demanded Rs.81,460/- as IGST and penalty under Section 129 (1)(a) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act. The petitioner had availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act, which was declined by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal), Ferozepur and Faridkot Division. The Court observed that the legality of the order raising the demand need not be delved into at that stage, as the facts warranted a remand to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration.2. The Court noted that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.01.2021 contained various grounds and submissions, including challenging the classification of goods and the lack of discrepancy in physical verification reports. The Appellate Authority's order dated 29.06.2022, which rejected the appeal, was found to be cryptic, non-speaking, and lacking in reasoning. Citing the necessity of disclosing reasons in judicial or quasi-judicial orders, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to address all submissions made by the petitioner.3. The Court referenced the importance of providing reasons in orders to ensure transparency, application of mind, and to minimize arbitrariness. It highlighted that the impugned order failed to address the grounds and submissions raised in the appeal, rendering it unsustainable. By setting aside the order and remanding the matter, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider all contentions raised by the petitioner and to issue a final order within two months after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative.4. The judgment underscored the significance of disclosing reasons in quasi-judicial orders, as established by legal precedents. It clarified that even in cases of affirmation, brief reasons must be provided to demonstrate the application of mind and to uphold the rule of law. The Court's decision to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration underscored the necessity of addressing all submissions made by the parties in statutory appeals to ensure a fair and reasoned decision-making process.