Case Law Details
Santhosh Kumar Bhavesa Bothra Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Introduction: The case of Santhosh Kumar Bhavesa Bothra versus the Commercial Tax Officer before the Madras High Court brings to light the issue of rushed orders by GST authorities despite the taxpayer’s request for more time to respond. This article delves into the details of the judgment and its implications.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, a registered entity under GST laws, received intimation and subsequent show cause notices regarding assessment periods in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. Upon receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner promptly requested 30 days’ time to prepare a comprehensive response, citing the need to gather information from various sources.
However, the impugned orders were issued within a remarkably short span, approximately 15 days from the date of the petitioner’s reply, without any acknowledgment or consideration of the petitioner’s request. The absence of reference to the petitioner’s reply in the orders raised questions regarding the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing.
The petitioner’s counsel highlighted this discrepancy, arguing that the rushed issuance of orders without due consideration of the petitioner’s request violated the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the Government Advocate contended that opportunities for personal hearings were provided post the show cause notices, implying that the issuance of orders was justified.
The Madras High Court, after careful consideration, observed the petitioner’s prompt response and the lack of acknowledgment of the same in the impugned orders. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned orders and remanding the matters for reconsideration.
In its verdict, the court directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from the receipt of the court’s order. Additionally, it instructed the respondent to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and to issue fresh orders within two months from the receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
Conclusion: The judgment in the case of Santhosh Kumar Bhavesa Bothra vs. Commercial Tax Officer serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing taxpayers with a fair opportunity to present their case. It underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding procedural fairness in administrative actions, particularly in matters concerning tax assessments.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Orders dated 16.10.2023 in respect of the assessment periods 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, respectively, are challenged in these writ petitions primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.
2. The petitioner is a registered person under applicable GST enactments. The petitioner received the respective intimation in Form GST DRC-01A on 27.01.2023. This was followed by the respective show cause notice dated 28.09.2023. Almost immediately after receipt of such show cause notice, by reply dated 29.09.2023, the petitioner requested for 30 days’ time to reply on the ground that it was necessary to collect details from various sources. The impugned orders were issued on 16.10.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply dated 29.09.2023 and pointed out that the impugned orders were issued within about 15 days from the date of receipt of such reply in spite of the petitioner requesting for 30 days’ time. She also pointed out that such reply was not referred to in the impugned order.
4. Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that personal hearing opportunities were provided subsequent to the show cause notices. Therefore, he contends that interference is not warranted.
5. It is noticeable that the petitioner replied to the show cause notices on the very next day and requested for 30 days’ time to reply. Without responding to the petitioner’s reply, the impugned orders were issued within about 15 or 16 days from the date of receipt of the reply. The impugned orders do not refer to the petitioner’s reply or set out any reasons for rejecting the reply. Since the petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand, these impugned orders are unsustainable.
6. Therefore, impugned orders dated 16.10.2023 are quashed and these matters are remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the respective show cause notice within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh orders within two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
7. These writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
