Case Law Details
K. Marimuthu Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)
The case of K. Marimuthu Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, judged by the Madras High Court (HC), sets a precedent in tax law, extending allowances for exceptional circumstances. In this scenario, the HC has allowed an appeal to be made beyond the statutory period, citing the petitioner’s cancer condition as the basis for this concession. The petitioner had challenged the recovery notice and bank attachment by the 2nd respondent, arguing its arbitrariness and violation of natural justice.
The case saw the petitioner, ailing from cancer, unable to meet his service tax liabilities for a period from 2015 to 2017, leading to a bank account attachment and a recovery notice from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner appealed this action, stating it infringed on his rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The court, acknowledging the petitioner’s health situation, permitted an appeal to the statutory authority beyond the typical limitation period, marking a significant decision in tax law.
However, the court also stated that the request to release the bank attachment should be raised before the appellate authority, signaling a balance in ensuring due process and maintaining the enforcement of tax laws.
This case underscores the flexibility of legal mechanisms in extraordinary circumstances, such as severe health conditions. By allowing the petitioner to file an appeal beyond the statutory period due to his ailment, the Madras High Court demonstrates the judicious balance of maintaining the rule of law while considering individual circumstances. However, the final decision on the bank account attachment lies with the appellate authority, signifying the significance of process and formalities in tax law enforcement.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
W.P.(MD) No.12115/2023
In WP(MD) No.12115/2023, challenge is made to the impugned recovery notice dated 24.04.2023 of the 2nd respondent and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to release the bank attachment and allow the petitioner to file an appeal against the order in Original No.201/2022 dated 27.06.2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned recovery is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and bank attachment made is against the principles of natural justice and the said exercise has been done without considering the ailment of the petitioner and only in such circumstances, he could not make necessary service tax liabilities for the period from 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017 and hence, prays for necessary directions.
3. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that it is not at all possible to release the bank attachment, when the petitioner is not able to substantiate the total amount, which is available in the said account and moreover the petitioner’s prayer is also not maintainable.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
5. There is no doubt that the petitioner is ailing from cancer. It is also seen that due to the default in paying the service tax, the respondents have attached the bank account of the petitioner and recovery notice has also been issued vide impugned order dated 24.04.2023, challenging which, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner has relied upon the orders passed by this Court dated 20.01.2009 and 28.04.2023 in WP No.804/2009 and W.P. No.13687/2023 respectively to contend that in those cases, the petitioners therein were permitted to approach the statutory authority beyond the period of limitation.
7. In the light of the same, this Court, considering the ailment of the petitioner, permits him to approach the statutory authority by way of an appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the request made by the petitioner to release the bank attachment may be raised before the appellate authority.
8. Accordingly, W.P.(MD) No.12115 of 2023 stands disposed of with the above direction.
9. As far as W.P.(MD) No.12116 of 2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. She has also made an endorsement to that effect.
10. In view of the endorsement so made, W.P.(MD) No. 12116/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn.
No costs. consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
