Case Law Details
Madhava Steels Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) Inspection (Madras High Court)
In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court recently rendered a verdict regarding GST assessment orders in the case of Madhava Steels Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) Inspection.
The crux of the matter lies in the issuance of assessment orders spanning from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024, challenged through writ petitions. The petitioner, upon receiving a show cause notice dated 02.10.2023, promptly responded with an interim reply on 02.11.2023. However, the subsequent assessment orders, dated 15.02.2024, failed to take into account this interim reply, prompting legal action.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out the omission of the interim reply in the adjudication process. The petitioner had diligently addressed each defect in the interim reply, which was also uploaded on the portal. Despite assertions of timely submission, the respondent contended that certain documents, including the interim reply, were not uploaded as per their claims.
Upon scrutiny of the documents, the court found that the interim reply was indeed submitted on 02.11.2023, as evidenced by various correspondences. However, the assessment orders conspicuously lacked any reference to this crucial submission. Consequently, the court ruled that the orders issued without considering the petitioner’s interim reply could not stand legal scrutiny.
In light of the above findings, the Madras High Court quashed the impugned assessment orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted a 15-day window to submit a final reply, with the respondent directed to afford a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing. Failure to submit a final reply within the stipulated time would empower the respondent to proceed based on the previously submitted interim reply.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By these writ petitions, assessment orders pertaining to assessment periods commencing from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 are challenged. Upon receipt of show cause notice dated 02.10.2023, the petitioner issued interim reply dated 02.11.2023. Thereafter on receipt of reminders from the respondent, the petitioner requested for extension of time to file the final reply. The impugned orders dated 15.02.2024 were issued in these facts and circumstances.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned orders and pointed out that the interim reply dated 02.11.2023 was not taken into consideration while adjudicating the matter. By drawing reference to the interim reply, learned counsel points out that each defect was dealt with therein. He also points out that such interim reply was uploaded on the portal. He relies upon the document at page no.71 of the typed set of papers in such regard.
3. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. On instructions, he submits that the interim reply at page nos.72 to 76 was not uploaded by the petitioner along with the document at page no.71 of the typed set of papers. He further submits that the petitioner was provided multiple opportunities to attend personal hearings and to submit the final reply. In this connection, he refers to reminders dated 03.11.2023, 02.12.2023 and 21.12.2023. He also points out that the petitioner replied to these reminders by repeatedly requesting for further time to file the final reply.
4. On perusal of the document at page no.71 of the typed set of papers, it is clear that the petitioner has stated therein that the interim reply is attached thereto. It also appears that the reply to the show cause notice was attached by way of PDF. The reply dated 16.11.2023 from the petitioner to reminder dated 03.11.2023 makes a reference to the petitioner’s interim reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner also requested for three weeks time to file the final reply. In subsequent communications also, the petitioner has requested for time to file the final reply. These documents indicate that the petitioner had submitted the interim reply on 02.11.2023.
5. On perusal of orders impugned herein, no reference has been made therein to the interim reply dated 02.11.2023. Since orders of adjudication were issued without considering the petitioner’s interim reply, such orders cannot be sustained.
6. Therefore, orders impugned in these writ petitions are set aside and these matters are remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to send a final reply within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s final reply. If such final reply is not filed within 15 days, the respondent may proceed to adjudicate the matter based on the interim reply previously submitted.
7. These writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
