Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Exide Industries Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.Nos.15405 and 15406 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.14945 to 14948 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/05/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Exide Industries Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)

Exide Industries, a company engaged in the manufacture of lead-acid storage batteries, has filed writ petitions questioning the legality of orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argues that it was not granted sufficient time to respond to the show cause notice and that the impugned orders do not comply with the circular issued by the respondent. The Madras High Court examines the case and provides its judgment in this matter.

Analysis: The court observes that the respondent did not address the petitioner’s request for an extension of time in relation to three of the queries raised. Referring to Circular No.12/2022 issued by the respondent, the court emphasizes the importance of granting reasonable time for compliance and considering further extensions on a case-by-case basis. The impugned orders fail to provide reasons for the refusal or granting of adjournments, thereby violating the circular. Consequently, the court sets aside the orders and directs the respondent to give the petitioner a fair opportunity to submit explanations within a reasonable time. The respondent is instructed to pass fresh orders after considering the petitioner’s entire explanation and providing a personal hearing.

Conclusion: The Madras High Court allows the writ petitions filed by Exide Industries Limited and sets aside the impugned orders. The court emphasizes the need for reasonable time and adherence to procedural guidelines in dealing with show cause notices. The respondent is directed to fix a date for an inquiry, allowing the petitioner a minimum of 30 days to submit explanations on the pending queries. After considering the submissions, the respondent will pass final orders based on merits and provide a personal hearing to the petitioner.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

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

Leave a Comment

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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031