Case Law Details
Winndsor Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently examined an order dated 29.12.2023 challenged by Winndsor Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. The petitioner alleged that their responses to the show cause notice were overlooked, prompting the court’s intervention.
Winndsor Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. faced scrutiny following an audit of their books, leading to a show cause notice on 27.09.2023. The petitioner promptly replied on 26.10.2023 and participated in a personal hearing on 06.12.2023. Subsequently, they submitted further communication on 20.12.2023, addressing concerns raised during the audit. However, the impugned order issued on 29.12.2023 failed to consider the petitioner’s comprehensive responses.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that their submissions were disregarded, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair consideration. The learned Government Advocate, while accepting notice for the respondent, acknowledged receipt of the petitioner’s reply dated 20.12.2023 but claimed non-receipt of the earlier response on 26.10.2023.
Upon examination, the court found discrepancies in the consideration of the petitioner’s replies. Despite acknowledgment of the petitioner’s initial response, the impugned order only referenced the supplementary communication dated 20.12.2023. Consequently, the court deemed the order untenable due to the failure to consider all relevant submissions.
In light of the oversight, the Madras High Court nullified the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to afford the petitioner a fair opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to duly consider all responses before issuing a fresh order within two months.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 29.12.2023 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner’s replies to the show cause notice were not taken into consideration. An audit of the books of account of the petitioner was undertaken. Pursuant thereto, show cause notice dated 27.09.2023 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied thereto on 26.10.2023. Pursuant to personal hearing notice dated 05.12.2023 a personal hearing was held on 06.12.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a further communication dated 20.12.2023. The impugned order was issued in these facts and circumstances on 29.12.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the reply dated 20.12.2023 and pointed out that the petitioner had responded to each defect forming the subject of the audit and the show cause notice. He also pointed out that the petitioner attended the personal hearing on 06.12.2023 and submitted communication dated 20.12.2023 with regard to reversal of Input Tax Credit while filing the reconciliation statement. By drawing reference to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s reply was disregarded and that the findings recorded in audit were confirmed.
3. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner’s reply dated 26.10.2023 was not received and that the only reply received was the reply dated 20.12.2023, which is referred to in the impugned order.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that such order was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Annur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore. On examining the reply dated 26.10.2023, such reply bears the acknowledgment of the office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Annur Circle. The subsequent communication from the petitioner dated 20.12.2023 was also issued to the same officer. Against this backdrop, when the impugned order is examined, it is noticeable that the petitioner’s reply was not taken into account except for reply dated 20.12.2023, which is in the nature of a supplement to the primary reply. Since the petitioner’s reply was not considered, the impugned order cannot sustained.
5. Therefore, impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, take into consideration the petitioner’s replies and issue a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. W.P.No.10047 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.11056 and 11057 of 2024 are closed.
Author Bio
