Case Law Details
Mumbai Port Authority Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
The Mumbai Port Trust Authority was issued a notice proposing demand of over Rs.100 crores
The petitioner is the Mumbai Port Trust Authority. A notice was issued proposing demand of over Rs.100 crores. The petitioner filed a reply. The petitioner purported to file a letter seeking time for further submissions and hearing. The said letter was not accepted by the authorities on the ground that physical receipt of documents is not possible. An order came to be passed confirming demand along with interest and equivalent penalty. The said order was challenged in a writ petition.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court set aside the order and allowed the writ petition. It held: (i) there was specific averment in the petition that the petitioner attempted to file a letter and the same has not been denied/disputed in the affidavit in reply; (ii) on such being pointed out, the Ld. State Counsel; on instructions from the officer who was summoned to remain present in court; states that the order be set aside; (iii) accordingly, matter is remanded to pass a speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The matter was argued by Ld. Counsel Bharat Raichandani
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. One of the grounds raised in the petition is that the impugned order dated 18th October 2023 was passed ex parte. It is alleged in petition in paragraph 4.15 that petitioner had submitted a letter dated 4th September 2023 seeking further time to file reply to the show cause notice but that letter itself was not accepted by the Officer who has passed the impugned order.
2. In affidavit in reply, there is no denial of these facts. When Mr. Raichandani brought to notice of the Court these facts, Ms. Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions from Mr. Juber Sayyed, State Tax Inspector, MUM-VAT-E-617, states that the Court may quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18th October 2023 and remand the matter for de novo consideration.
3. In view of the statement made by Ms. Chavan, the impugned order dated 18th October 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent no.5 for de novo consideration.
4. Petitioner shall, on or before 12th August 2024, file all documents, and details required to respond to the show cause notice together with reply to the show cause notice. Since petitioner had almost a year since the show cause notice was issued, no further time shall be given to petitioner and if they fail to file reply/documents, respondent no.5 may proceed to fix a date for personal hearing. Before passing an order, personal hearing shall be given, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 5 working days in advance.
5. Order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of petitioner.
6. All rights and contentions are kept open.
7. We clarify that we have not made any observation on merits of the matter.
8. Petition disposed.
Author Bio
