Soremartee S.A Luxembourg vs. State Of Maharshtra Thr The Secrary Ministry Of Finance And Ors

Held

The Court held that the issues raised in this petition were covered by its decision in Writ Petition No. 11929 of 2023, which dealt with the financial year 2013-2014. The Court reiterated the findings from that judgment, emphasizing that the impugned order was made without serving any notice on the petitioners and without providing them an opportunity to be heard. The Court noted the erroneous recording that the petitioners’ representative was heard on May 23, 2023, when the order was made on March 20, 2023. Additionally, the Court observed the significant delay in serving the order, which was made on March 20, 2023, but served on Petitioner No. 3 only on July 1, 2023. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned assessment order dated March 20, 2023, and the corresponding demand notice dated March 20, 2023. The Court explicitly stated that the request for remand was not acceded to for the reasons set out in the judgment disposing of Writ Petition No. 11929 of 2023. The ratio decidendi is that assessment orders passed without adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly without providing an opportunity to be heard and with significant procedural lapses, are unsustainable.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Soremartec S. A., M/s Magic Production Group SA, and M/s Ferrero India Pvt. Ltd., challenged an assessment order dated March 20, 2023, and a corresponding demand notice dated March 20, 2023, for the financial year 2014-2015. The petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed without proper notice or an opportunity to be heard. They also pointed out an erroneous recording that their representative was heard on May 23, 2023, when the order was purportedly made on March 20, 2023. Furthermore, the order, though dated March 20, 2023, was served on Petitioner No. 3 only on July 1, 2023, after a significant delay. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, the Commissioner of State Tax, and the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, were the respondents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 20, 2023, and the demand notice dated March 20, 2023, for FY 2014-2015 are liable to be quashed and set aside on the grounds of procedural irregularities, specifically the lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard to the petitioners? The petitioners contended that the impugned assessment order and demand notice were passed in violation of principles of natural justice. They argued that no notice was served on them, nor were they given an opportunity to present their case before the order was passed. They highlighted the discrepancy in the date of the order and the date on which their representative was allegedly heard, as well as the substantial delay in the service of the order. The petitioners relied on the reasoning adopted in a related judgment concerning the financial year 2013-2014 (Writ Petition No. 11929 of 2023). The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.