Ganesh Engineering Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madras High Court, in Ganesh Engineering Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST), examined a challenge to a GST assessment order dated 22 April 2024 on the ground that the taxpayer had not been granted an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the assessment proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. The challenge was confined to the denial of a personal hearing rather than the substantive merits of the tax demand.
During the hearing, the respondent’s counsel acknowledged that no personal hearing had been granted. The High Court also examined the show cause notice, which contained a table specifying the deadline for submitting a reply as 26 January 2024, while the date, time and venue of the personal hearing were all marked “NA”. The Court therefore found that the absence of a hearing was established by the department’s own records. The respondent agreed to undertake the assessment afresh after providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq accordingly set aside the impugned proceedings dated 22 April 2024. The petitioner was permitted to treat the quashed assessment order as a show cause notice and was directed to submit objections within two weeks from receipt of the High Court’s order. The assessing authority was directed to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The High Court did not decide the underlying tax liability on merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceeding dated 22.04.2024 on the limited ground that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of personal hearing.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned proceeding has been passed without granting the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, hence, the impugned proceeding deserves to be set-aside.
3. To a pointed question as to whether a personal hearing was, in fact, granted, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no personal hearing was granted. As matter of fact, the Table in the Show Cause Notice itself indicates that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
Details of personal hearing and due date of file reply:
| S.No. | Description | Particulars |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Date by which reply has to be submitted | 26.01.2024 |
| 2 | Date of personal hearing | NA |
| 3 | Time of personal hearing | NA |
| 4 | Venue where personal hearing will be held | NA |
4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that they would redo the assessment after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
5. In view thereof, the impugned proceeding dated 22.04.2024 is set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to treat the impugned order as a Show Cause Notice. The petitioner is directed to file its objection within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall thereafter redo the assessment, after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
