Case Law Details
Cannon Exports Vs Assistant commissioner (ST)(FAC) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court’s decision in the case of Cannon Exports vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) revolves around the petitioner’s challenge to a GST order. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated December 11, 2023, and the consequential proceedings dated May 7, 2024. The court’s judgment addresses procedural issues related to service of notices and provides directives for ensuring the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing.
Background and Contentions
The petitioner, Cannon Exports, contested the GST order on the grounds that they were not served with a showcause notice and that the impugned orders were issued without their knowledge, effectively denying them an opportunity to present their case. The petitioner claimed that this lack of notification was a violation of due process, as they were unaware of the proceedings against them until after the orders were passed.
On the other hand, the government, represented by Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, argued that the notices had been duly served to the petitioner at the same address where subsequent orders were successfully delivered. Furthermore, these notices were also uploaded on the official portal, making them accessible to the petitioner. The government contended that the petitioner’s claim of ignorance was unfounded. Additionally, the government noted that the orders were appealable and pointed out that the period for filing an appeal, as well as for filing a condonation of delay petition, had already lapsed.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The court, after considering submissions from both sides, acknowledged the petitioner’s assertion that they were not given a fair chance to respond to the showcause notices. The court found merit in the petitioner’s argument about the lack of a hearing, which is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. Therefore, the court decided that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to respond to the notices issued for the assessment year 2017-2018.
However, the court also deemed it necessary to impose certain conditions on the petitioner. Specifically, the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax amount before the concerned authorities. This deposit was mandated as a prerequisite for the petitioner to be granted a hearing. Upon making the deposit, the petitioner would be allowed to present their contentions regarding the impugned orders.
The court’s order included several key directives: the impugned order dated December 11, 2023, and the consequential order dated May 7, 2024, were quashed; the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the tax amount to be granted a hearing; authorities were instructed to resolve the case on its merits and according to the law within eight weeks of the deposit; the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account was to be lifted upon making the deposit; and any connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without any order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
1. The prayer made in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 in GSTIN/33AJNPA0213D1Z5/2017-18 passed by the respondent, and the consequential proceedings in GSTIN/33AJAPA0213D1Z5/2017-18 dated 07.05.2024.
2. Mrs. K. Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondent.
3. By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
4. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner was not served with the showcause notice and the impugned orders came to be passed behind the back of the petitioner.
5. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submitted that notices have been served to the petitioner in the very same address where the subsequent orders were served on it and further the said notices were also been uploaded in the portal and therefore, the petitioner cannot plead ignorance. She further submitted that impugned orders are also appealable and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and that apart the period for filing the Appeal and also condonation of delay petition have also been lapsed.
6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, since the impugned orders have been passed without hearing the petitioner, this Court feels that the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to show cause to the notices issued in respect of Assessment Year 2017-2018. However, the Petitioner has to be put on terms.
7. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 and the consequential order dated 07.05.2024 are set aside. The Petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the tax amount before the authorities concerned and on such deposit being made, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing to raise its contentions in respect of the impugned orders stated supra and thereafter the Respondents shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks.
On such deposit, the bank account attachment shall also be raised. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Author Bio
