M/S. Sre Ganesh Plywood Agencies vs. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals State)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sre Ganesh Plywood Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-I, Thiruverambur Assessment Circle, Tiruchy. The impugned order was passed ex-parte because the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to respond when a show cause notice was uploaded on the online portal. The petitioner contended that the personal hearing was only intimated online and that their part-time accountant failed to inform them about the show cause notice. The tax period involved is 2019-2020. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals - State) is the first respondent, and the Deputy State Tax Officer is the second respondent.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity when the show cause notice was uploaded and the final order was passed, a one-time opportunity could be granted. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the personal hearing was only intimated online and that their part-time accountant's failure to inform them contributed to the situation. Consequently, the Court decided to set aside the impugned ex-parte order dated 24.08.2024. The matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that procedural irregularities or lack of proper intimation, even if partly due to the assessee's internal issues, can warrant a fresh opportunity to be heard, provided there is a willingness to deposit a portion of the disputed tax. The operative directions included the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks, upon which the impugned order would be set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. Any bank account attachment made pursuant to the impugned order was also to be raised.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the respondent authority is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-receipt of proper intimation regarding the show cause notice and personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the intimation of the personal hearing was only through the online portal, which they did not receive timely information about due to their accounts being handled by a part-time accountant. They contended that this lack of proper notice led to an ex-parte order being passed against them, thus denying them an opportunity to present their case. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue or state. However, the passing of an ex-parte order implies that the respondent authority proceeded based on the available information and the petitioner's failure to respond.