Case Law Details
Tenkasi Shencottai Taluk Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The Tenkasi Shencottai Taluk’s confrontation with the State Tax Officer over GST orders reached a pivotal juncture in the corridors of justice at the Madras High Court. With allegations of procedural unfairness looming large, the court’s verdict resonated with echoes of justice and procedural rectitude.
The crux of the matter revolved around the petitioner’s contention that the impugned GST orders, dated 06-07-2023, were passed without affording them a fundamental right – the opportunity of a personal hearing. This omission cast a shadow of doubt over the validity of the assessments for the fiscal years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.
In a legal arena where due process is sacrosanct, the absence of a fair hearing stands as a glaring violation. The petitioner’s plea for Certiorarified Mandamus sought not merely to quash the impugned orders but to recalibrate the scales of justice, demanding a fresh assessment with the essential element of a personal hearing.
The courtroom drama unfolded with Mr. A. Satheesh Murugan, representing the petitioner, articulating the grievance with eloquence. His arguments reverberated against the backdrop of legal precedent and constitutional imperatives. On the opposite end, Mr. J.K. Jeyaselan, the learned Government Advocate, sought to uphold the sanctity of the impugned orders.
The learned Government Advocate’s revelation of a frozen sum of Rs.15,00,000 in the petitioner’s account underscored the tangible consequences of the disputed orders. However, the court’s gaze remained fixed on the procedural irregularity, transcending the pecuniary implications.
The pronouncement from the bench reflected a meticulous consideration of the facts and legal tenets at play. The setting aside of the impugned orders stood as a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to fairness and equity. By remanding the case back to the respondent, the court heralded a fresh opportunity for justice, with the assurance of due process.
In the annals of legal history, the case of Tenkasi Shencottai Taluk Vs State Tax Officer etched a narrative of procedural integrity and judicial vigilance. The Madras High Court’s decree reverberates beyond the confines of this particular dispute, serving as a beacon of hope for all those who seek justice in the corridors of law. As the curtains draw on this chapter, the principles of fairness and due process emerge as the bedrock upon which the edifice of justice stands tall.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner has filed these writ petitions for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the respondent in GSTIN.33AAAAO1796N1Z7/2018-2019 and GSTIN. 33AAAAO1796N1Z7/2019-2020 dated 06-07-2023, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. A. Satheesh Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.K.Jeyaselan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
3. It is informed by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was frozen in the petitioner’s account and the aforesaid amount was also recovered towards part liability of the petitioner in respect of the respective impugned orders dated 06.07.2023 for the assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 respectively.
4. The submission of the learned Government Advocate for the respondent stands recorded.
5. Considering the fact that the orders have been passed before the petitioner filed a reply to the notices issued under the provisions of the respective GST enactments to the petitioner, the impugned orders passed in GSTIN. 33AAAAO1796N1Z7/2018-2019 and GSTIN.33AAAAO1796N1Z7/2019-2020 are set aside and the case is remanded back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. The impugned orders, which stands quashed, shall be treated as corrigendum to show cause notice issued earlier. The petitioner shall file a consolidated reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall pass fresh orders within a period of 30 days thereafter on merits and in accordance with law. It is needless to state that the petitioner shall be heard before fresh orders are passed in respect of the respective assessment years.
6. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Author Bio
