Case Law Details
Johnson Bevisedmond Vs Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)
Introduction: The Madras High Court recently issued a stay on GST recovery proceedings in the case of Johnson Bevisedmond vs Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. This decision came in response to alleged violations of principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the petitioner’s failure to appear for personal hearings due to the late receipt of notices.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, Johnson Bevisedmond, challenged the order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, and the subsequent recovery letter dated 14.09.2023 from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner argued that despite being entitled to three opportunities for personal hearings, he was only provided with two. Additionally, the notices were received belatedly due to a change in residence from Chennai to Trichy, coupled with the petitioner’s involvement in conducting examinations.
The petitioner urged the court to set aside the impugned order or allow him to file an appeal without the constraints of limitation. The respondent’s counsel, acknowledging the petitioner’s intent to file an appeal, proposed that the court grant liberty for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.
After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the available materials, the Madras High Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal within 30 days. The Appellate Authority is instructed to entertain the appeal without insisting on the issue of limitation and make decisions in accordance with the law.
Simultaneously, an interim stay on recovery proceedings was ordered until the appeal is filed. The court clarified that the interim stay would automatically be lifted if the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the specified 30-day period.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s decision in Johnson Bevisedmond’s case provides relief by staying GST recovery proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and granted the petitioner the opportunity to file an appeal without limitations. This development serves as a reminder of the significance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings related to taxation matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
These writ petitions have been filed challenging order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the 1st respondent and recovery letter dated 14.09.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. Mr.K.Mohanamurali, learned Senior Standing counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that prior to the passing of the said impugned order dated 29.03.2023, the respondent had provided two opportunities of personal hearings on 16.12.2022 and 16.01.2023. However, since the petitioner had shifted his residences from Chennai to Trichy, he had received the said notices belatedly. Further, since the petitioner was held up in conducting examinations, he was not able to appear for the aforesaid personal hearings.
4. He would also submit that legally, the petitioner is entitled for three opportunities of personal hearing, however, only two opportunities were provided to him. Hence, he would contend that the said impugned order dated 29.03.2023 has been passed by the 1st respondent in violation of principles of natural justice. Under these circumstances, he pleaded this Court either to set aside the impugned order for deciding the matter after affording opportunities of personal hearing to the petitioner or to permit the petitioner to file the appeal, without insisting for limitation.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit since the petitioner is intend to file the appeal, this Court may pass any orders granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
7. In view of the above, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority by filing the appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In such case, the Appellate Authority is also directed to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner without insisting the issue of limitation and pass orders in accordance with law.
8. In the meantime, there shall be an order of interim stay of the recovery proceedings until the filing of appeal. It is also made clear that if the petitioner failed to file the appeal within a period of 30 days, the said interim stay will automatically stand vacated.
9. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Author Bio
