Case Law Details
Tvl. Raunaq Foundations Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
In the case of Tvl. Raunaq Foundations Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court), the petitioner challenged an appellate order dated 28.03.2023, contending that they were not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The dispute arose over transitional Input Tax Credit (ITC), and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the GST Department. Despite informing about a change in business address during the appeal process, the petitioner claimed they did not receive hearing notices and thus could not participate in the proceedings.
The petitioner had paid a penalty of Rs. 50,000 and remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand at the time of filing the appeal. The GST Department debited amounts from the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger, totaling approximately 37% of the disputed tax demand. The petitioner requested reconsideration of the matter due to these payments.
The Madras High Court, noting that the appellate order was issued ex parte without affording the petitioner an opportunity to present their case, set aside the order dated 28.03.2023. The Court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing.
Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An appellate order dated 28.03.2023 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before such order was issued. The petitioner had availed of transitional Input Tax Credit (ITC). Upon proceedings being initiated in respect thereof, an order dated 01.11.2019 was issued by the 2nd respondent herein. Such order was carried in appeal by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. The petitioner changed its additional place of business from ‘Ayyanambakkam, Chennai-95’ to an address at ‘Halls Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10’ while the appeal was pending. In those circumstances, the petitioner states that hearing notices were not received and the petitioner could not participate in proceedings before the appellate authority.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such change of address was communicated on 27.09.2023 and that the penalty of Rs.50,000/- was paid at that juncture. He further submits that the petitioner had remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand at the time of presentation of the appeal. After the appeal was dismissed ex parte, he submits that the GST Department has made debits from the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger and that the total value of debits + amounts remitted by the petitioner as pre-deposit aggregate to about 37% of the disputed tax demand. In these circumstances, he makes a request that the matter be reconsidered.
3. Mr. C. Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondents. In view of the remittance of 10% of the disputed tax demand at the time of filing the appeal and the debits made from the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger, he submits that the matter may be remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration.
4. Upon examining the materials on record and taking into account the fact that the appellate order was issued without the petitioner being heard, this is a fit case for remand to the appellate authority.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration.
6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
