JUDGMENT :

Harsha Devani, J.

1. Rule. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present petition, which lies in a very narrow compass and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition was taken up for final hearing today.

3. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 20.8.2019 passed by the second respondent under subsection (2) of section 34 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "GVAT Act") whereby the petitioner has been held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 46,779/-.

4. The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner is in the business of sale and resale of goods. The petitioner entered into business transactions with three vendors being M/s. Rupangi Enterprise (VAT No. 24073905061), M/s. Swastik Enterprise (VAT No. 24070702003) and M/s. Detson Industries (VAT No. 24074202363) and had purchased various commodities from the said firms. It appears that the firms -vendors, from whom the petitioner had purchased the commodities, did not pay revenue to the Government, and hence, proceedings were initiated against them which culminated into orders of cancellation of the registration of the said firms under the GVAT Act. Such cancellation of registration of the firms was ordered to be void ab initio. Pursuant to the order passed against the above firms, on 23.2.2019, a notice came to be issued to the petitioner under section 34(2) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the period 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that upon being served with the assessment notice, the petitioner cooperated with the revenue authority and remained present on the date mentioned in the notice. The petitioner remained present before the authority with all the necessary documents but no hearing took place on that date. It is the case of the petitioner that he was awaiting a notice for the next date of hearing so as to make submissions in support of the documents produced by him; however, to his surprise the impugned order came to be served upon him giving the details of tax, interest and penalty imposed on it. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. Mr. Digant Popat, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and does not contain any reasons for the conclusions arrived at by the second respondent-State Tax Officer (1) and hence, the same is bad in law, being in breach of the principles of natural justice as well as on the count of being a non-speaking order, and therefore, deserved to be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the second respondent has duly considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner while passing the impugned order and, hence, there is no warrant for interference by this court. She, however, was not in a position to dispute the fact that the impugned order does not reflect any application of mind to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the second respondent has merely recorded that pursuant to the notice issued in Form No. 302, the dealer had remained present with the relevant documents. He, thereafter, has merely computed the tax payable by the petitioner and has ordered that a demand notice be issued accordingly. On a plain reading of the impugned order, it is apparent that the same is totally non-speaking order and does not record the reasons for the conclusions arrived by the assessing authority.

8. At this juncture it may be germane to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and anot