Case Law Details
R. Soundararajan & Co. Vs Deputy Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Introduction: This article explores the case of R. Soundararajan & Co. vs Deputy Tax Officer-1, where the Madras High Court, on 27.04.2022, quashed an impugned order due to an invalid GST notice. The petitioner argued that the notice was sent to a wrong email, violating principles of natural justice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background of the Writ Petition: R. Soundararajan & Co. filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 27.04.2022, asserting a total turnover discrepancy in the GST order. The petitioner contended that the GSTRI was Rs.1,67,60,124.15, SGST was Rs.14,08,714.97, and CGST was Rs.14,08,714.97, with an excess amount paid.
2. Lack of Personal Hearing: The petitioner highlighted that before passing the impugned order, no personal hearing was provided. This omission raised concerns about procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles.
3. Notice Sent to Wrong Email: The respondent claimed that the notice was sent via email to the petitioner, who allegedly did not respond. However, upon scrutiny, it was discovered that the notice was dispatched to a different email address, not associated with the petitioner. This revelation raised significant questions about the validity of the notice and compliance with natural justice.
4. Violation of Natural Justice: The court, considering the mismatch in the recipient’s email, deemed it a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Discovering that the notice reached an unintended recipient’s email created a procedural irregularity that impacted the petitioner’s right to respond adequately.
Court’s Directive and Conclusion:
1. Quashing of Impugned Order: The Madras High Court, recognizing the violation of natural justice, quashed the impugned order dated 27.04.2022.
2. Reassessment and Directions: The petitioner was directed to submit objections within three weeks of receiving the court’s order. The respondent was instructed to consider the objections, grant a personal hearing, and pass a speaking order within eight weeks.
3. Conclusion of Writ Petition: With these directives, the writ petition filed by R. Soundararajan & Co. was allowed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and principles of natural justice. No costs were imposed on the petitioner.
This case serves as a reminder of the critical role procedural fairness plays in tax assessments, highlighting the need for accurate communication and due diligence in ensuring notices reach the intended recipients. The court’s intervention underscores the significance of upholding principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated 27.04.2022.
2. With their consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Heard Mr. N. Viswanathan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Saravanan, Additional Government Pleader, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the documents.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that total turnover was stated in the impugned order is GSTRI-Rs.1,67,60,124.15 and the SGST is Rs.14,08,714.97 and the CGST is Rs.14,08,714.97. The total tax i.e., paid by the petitioner is stated in the second column. Infact, the petitioner has paid the excess amount.
4. Before passing the impugned order, the petitioner has not availed any personal hearing.
4. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has not responded the notice. However, the respondent stated that the notice was sent through the e-Mail I.D of the petitioner. On verifying the said fact it is seen that the respondents have sent the notice to the some other e-Mail I.D., which is not the e-Mail I.D. of the petitioner.
5. After receipt of the impugned order only, the petitioner came to know that the notice was sent to e-Mail I.D. and the said e-Mail I.D. is not belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there it is clear violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 27.04.2022, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to submit his objections, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the respondent shall consider the objections of the petitioner. The respondents shall grant personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent shall pass speaking order and the said exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks.
7. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P(MD)No.15838 of 2023 is allowed and W.M.P(MD)No.15841 is closed.
Author Bio
