Case Law Details
Tvl. Sri Nallamal Steels Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently rendered a significant judgment in the case of Tvl. Sri Nallamal Steels versus Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC). The court addressed the issue of disregarding adjournment requests and the lack of reasonable hearing opportunities provided to the petitioner. Let’s delve into a detailed analysis of the judgment.
Analysis: The petitioner, Tvl. Sri Nallamal Steels, challenged separate orders dated 08.02.2024 concerning financial years 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022. The impugned orders stemmed from show cause notices issued on 05.02.2024, except for the notice concerning the financial year 2021-2022, which was dated 18.12.2023.
Despite the petitioner’s request for an adjournment due to the illness of the authorized representative, the court noted that the adjournment request was disregarded, and orders were passed on 08.02.2024. The court highlighted that a similar disregard for the petitioner’s reply occurred concerning the financial year 2021-2022.
The learned Government Advocate, representing the respondent, acknowledged that the petitioner requested an adjournment only for the financial year 2021-2022.
The court observed that for financial years 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021, the lack of reasonable opportunity was evident, as the show cause notices and subsequent orders were issued within a short timeframe, without due consideration to the adjournment request.
Similarly, regarding the financial year 2021-2022, the court found that the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice was disregarded, leading to an unsustainable order.
Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted two weeks to submit replies to the respective show cause notices. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue fresh orders within three months from the receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s judgment in Tvl. Sri Nallamal Steels versus Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) underscores the importance of providing parties with a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court’s decision to set aside the GST demand orders highlights the significance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By these four writ petitions, separate orders dated 08.02.2024 in respect of financial years 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021- 2022 are challenged.
2. The petitioner received show cause notices dated 05.02.2024 in respect of the above mentioned financial years except financial year 202 1-2022. The said show cause notice called upon the petitioner to reply on or before 07.02.2024. The impugned orders were issued thereafter by not considering the petitioner’s request for an adjournment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the petitioner’s reply dated 08.02.2024 requesting for an adjournment on account of the illness of the authorised representative. By inviting my attention to the orders impugned herein, he points out that the request for adjournment was disregarded and that orders were passed on 08.02.2024. As regards financial year 202 1-2022, he submits that a show cause notice dated 12.2023 was received by the petitioner and replied to on 21.12.2023. By referring to the impugned order in respect of that year, he points out that the petitioner’s reply was disregarded.
4. V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent. He points out that the petitioner requested for an adjournment only with regard to financial year 2021-2022 and not with regard to other financial years.
5. As regards financial years 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the show cause notices are dated 05.02.2024 and the orders are dated 08.02.2024. The facts speak for themselves especially in view of petitioner’s request for adjournment dated 08.02.2024. Undoubtedly, a reasonable opportunity was not provided to the petitioner and, consequently, these orders cannot be sustained. As regards financial year 2021-2022, the petitioner has placed on record reply dated 21.12.2023 to show cause notice dated 18.12.2023. On examining the impugned order, such reply was disregarded. As a consequence, this order also is unsustainable.
6. For reasons set out above, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are set aside and these matters are remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner is permitted to submit replies to the respective show cause notice within two weeks 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 a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s reply.
7. These writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
