Case Law Details

Case Name : HDFC Sales Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P No.36163 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/12/2023
Related Assessment Year :

HDFC Sales Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) (Madras High Court)

Madras High Court directs resolution of HDFC Sales Pvt Ltd’s grievances regarding overlapping notices. Court sets timeline for respondent’s action.

Introduction: The writ petition filed by HDFC Sales Private Limited challenges the notice dated 14.09.2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC). The petitioner contends that the said notice overlaps with a previous notice dated 29.08.2023 and raises concerns about jurisdiction. The Madras High Court, at the admission stage, considered the petitioner’s grievances and directed a resolution before the respondent.

Background: The petitioner argues that the DRC-01 notice was issued twice, on 29.08.2023 and 14.09.2023, leading to an overlap of the two notices. Additionally, the petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the respondent. The court is presented with the request to intervene and set aside the show cause notice.

Court’s Decision: The Madras High Court, after hearing both parties, declines to interfere with the show cause notice at this stage. Instead, it directs the petitioner to approach the respondent and raise all grievances before them. The court emphasizes that the respondent should consider and address all the issues raised by the petitioner in accordance with the law.

Court’s Directions:

  • The respondent is instructed to issue a detailed show cause notice to the petitioner by the following day (23.12.2023).
  • The petitioner is directed to file a reply on or before 27.12.2023.
  • After receiving the reply, the respondent is directed to schedule a hearing and pass orders by 29.12.2023.
  • The court instructs the respondent to comprehensively address the issues of overlapping show cause notices and jurisdiction in the final order.

Conclusion: The Madras High Court’s decision in HDFC Sales Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner highlights the court’s reluctance to intervene at the admission stage. Instead, it directs the petitioner to pursue the resolution of grievances before the respondent, setting a timeline for the issuance of a detailed notice, filing of a reply, and the final order.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice dated 14.09.2023 issued by the respondent.

2. Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned notice dated 14.09.2023 has been issued over-lapping the notice dated 29.08.2023 and the said impugned notice was not even signed by the respondent. Further, he would contend that earlier at the time of issuance of notice dated 29.08.2023, the summary notice was issued by one officer and the detailed notice was issued by another officer, whereas, while issuing the impugned notice dated 14.09.2023, the respondent had issued only the summary notice and no detailed notice has been issued to the petitioner. He had also raised the issue of jurisdiction with regard to the issuance of the said notice. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent requests this Court that all the issues raised by the petitioner may be consider by the respondent, in which case, appropriate orders will be passed by them after providing sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the DRC-01 notice was issued by the respondent twice on 29.08.2023 and 14.09.2023 and the same are overlapping. Further, the issue of jurisdiction has also been raised by the petitioner.

7. Considering the above submissions, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the show cause notice issued by the respondent. Hence, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach and raise all their grievances before the respondent. Accordingly, all the grievances raised by the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent in accordance with law.

8. Further, it is informed that the last date to pass the final order is on 31.12.2023, in such case, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:

i) The respondent is directed to issue the detailed show cause notice to the petitioner by tomorrow (23.12.2023).

ii) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file the reply on or before 27.12.2023.

iii) After the filing of reply, the respondent is directed to fix the hearing date and pass orders in accordance with law on or before 29.12.2023. While deciding the matter, the respondent is directed to decide the issue of overlapping of show cause notices dated 29.08.2023 and 14.09.2023 and also the issue of jurisdiction and thereafter, pass a comprehensive order clubbing both the show cause notices.

9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Download Judgment/Order

Author Bio

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Join us on Whatsapp

taxguru on whatsapp GROUP LINK

Join us on Telegram

taxguru on telegram GROUP LINK

Download our App

  

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

February 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829