Case Law Details
Tvl. M.S. Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The case of Tvl. M.S. Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer before the Madras High Court underscores the significance of providing a personal hearing upon request in assessment proceedings under GST enactments. This article delves into the details of the case, highlighting the implications of the court’s ruling.
Analysis: The petitioner, a registered entity under GST laws, challenged an assessment order on the grounds of denial of a personal hearing despite an explicit request. The petitioner had duly responded to the defects raised in the show cause notice but failed to submit supporting documents. However, the crucial point of contention remained the denial of a personal hearing.
The court observed that while the petitioner’s failure to submit relevant documents weakened their defense, the failure of the respondent to grant a requested personal hearing undermined the principles of natural justice. Citing sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the court deemed the order vitiated due to this procedural lapse.
Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted a 15-day window to submit relevant documents, following which the respondent was directed to provide a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within two months.
Conclusion: The judgment in Tvl. M.S. Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer serves as a reminder of the paramount importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly in administrative proceedings such as tax assessments. While compliance with procedural requirements is essential, any denial of a requested personal hearing can vitiate the entire process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An assessment order dated 29.01.2024 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a personal hearing.
2. The petitioner is a registered person under applicable GST enactments. Upon receipt of the show cause notice dated 23.08.2023, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 06.12.2023. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 29.01.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the petitioner’s reply dated 06.12.2023 and pointed out that the petitioner had responded to all four defects referred to in the show cause notice. He also pointed out that a personal hearing was expressly requested for by the said reply. By further submitting that such personal hearing was not provided, learned counsel submits that the impugned order calls for interference. He also points out that a personal hearing was held on 22.03.2024 in relation to the same assessment period and that the petitioner submitted several documents at such personal hearing.
4. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the intimation was issued to the petitioner on 16.06.2023. Therefore, from the date of intimation, he submits that about six months’ time was available to the petitioner to produce all relevant documents in respect of the four defects referred to both in the intimation and show cause notice. He further submits that the petitioner was offered a personal hearing on 14.09.2023. Therefore, learned counsel submits that principles of natural justice were adhered to.
5. The petitioner has placed on record the reply dated 06.12.2023. By such reply, the petitioner has responded to all four defects mentioned in the show cause notice. On perusal of the petitioner’s reply, it appears that the petitioner did not annex supporting documents. Undoubtedly, the petitioner’s failure to annex relevant documents resulted in the rejection of the defence raised by the petitioner to the four defects. However, the failure of the respondent to provide a personal hearing in spite of an express request for a personal hearing vitiates the impugned order.
6. Consequently, the impugned order calls for interference on account of breach of the statutory prescription in sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
7. For reasons set out above, the order impugned herein is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit relevant documents in support of the reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of documents from the petitioner.
8. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
