Case Law Details
D. Prasanna Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)
In the case of D. Prasanna vs. Assistant Commissioner before the Madras High Court, the petitioner challenged a recovery order issued by the GST department, claiming it was passed without a proper opportunity for a personal hearing, thereby violating natural justice principles. However, the court noted that the petitioner had been given two prior chances for a personal hearing, both of which were missed. On 15.03.2023 and again on 20.04.2023, the petitioner failed to appear despite being granted ample time to file a reply. The petitioner then requested an additional 8 weeks to submit a response but did not comply, leading to the issuance of the impugned order on 29.08.2023.
The court concluded that the GST department was not at fault for proceeding with the order, as the petitioner had repeatedly missed deadlines and failed to take advantage of the opportunities provided. Given that an alternative remedy of appeal was available, the court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner an additional 30 days to file an appeal with the appropriate authority. The court also instructed the authorities to accept the appeal without considering the limitation period if the appeal was otherwise in order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 of the respondent thereby initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned Order has been passed without providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned Order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
3. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that ample opportunity has been provided to the petitioner. He would further submit that initially personal hearing opportunity was granted to the petitioner on 15.03.2023 and the petitioner failed to appear on 15.03.2023. Since the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearing, by a letter dated 12.04.2023, the petitioner was onceagain requested to file reply on or before 20.04.2023 and personal hearing opportunity was also provided on that date. However, the petitioner failed to appear on the date. A letter was sent by the petitioner on 27.04.2023 requesting 8 weeks time to file his reply. However, no reply was filed by the petitioner even after lapse of 8 weeks. Hence, the impugned Order came to be passed on 29.08.2023. Therefore, he would submit that in the present case, there is no fault on the part of the respondent and opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner and as the petitioner failed to file his reply and appear for personal hearing, the impugned Order came to be passed. As alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, requested this Court to pass appropriate Order.
4. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondent.
5. Originally, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.12.2020. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.24996 of 2019 [batch of cases] and the Writ Petitions were diposed of by this Court with a direction to the petitioners to file a reply. Accordingly for filing reply by the petitioner and for personal hearing date was fixed on 15.03.2023. As the petitioner has not appeared before the respondent on 15.03.2023, a letter was sent by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to file a reply on or before 20.04.2024 and personal hearing has also been fixed on the said date. Even on the said date, petitioner has not appeared for the hearing. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner has sent a letter to the respondent seeking 8 weeks to file his reply. Even after expiry of 8 weeks, as the petitioner has not filed his reply, the impugned Order came to be passed. The respondent has accommodated the petitioner for two occassation for personal hearing and for filing his reply. But the petitioner has failed to avail the opportunity provided by the respondent. Hence, there is fault on the petitioner and the respondent cannot be blamed for the same. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the plea of the petitioner. As alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer appeal before appropriate forum.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appeal time has already been expired and time may be given to the petitioner for preferring appeal, for which the learned Standing Counsel has no objection.
7. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) This Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ii) 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court is granted to petitioner to prefer the appeal before the appropriate forum and the authorities shall take the appeal on file without insisting on limitation, if the appeal is, otherwise, in Order.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Author Bio
