Winndsor Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently examined an order dated 29.12.2023 challenged by Winndsor Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. The petitioner alleged that their responses to the show cause notice were overlooked, prompting the court’s intervention.
Winndsor Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. faced scrutiny following an audit of their books, leading to a show cause notice on 27.09.2023. The petitioner promptly replied on 26.10.2023 and participated in a personal hearing on 06.12.2023. Subsequently, they submitted further communication on 20.12.2023, addressing concerns raised during the audit. However, the impugned order issued on 29.12.2023 failed to consider the petitioner’s comprehensive responses.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that their submissions were disregarded, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair consideration. The learned Government Advocate, while accepting notice for the respondent, acknowledged receipt of the petitioner’s reply dated 20.12.2023 but claimed non-receipt of the earlier response on 26.10.2023.
Upon examination, the court found discrepancies in the consideration of the petitioner’s replies. Despite acknowledgment of the petitioner’s initial response, the impugned order only referenced the supplementary communication dated 20.12.2023. Consequently, the court deemed the order untenable due to the failure to consider all relevant submissions.
In light of the oversight, the Madras High Court nullified the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to duly consider all responses before issuing a fresh order within two months.
