Shri M N Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shri M N Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an Order-in-Original No. 06/2024-25 dated April 24, 2024, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, GST, Bangalore West Commissionerate. The petitioner also sought to quash an order passed by the CESTAT dated February 6, 2025, and a miscellaneous order dated January 27, 2025. The petitioner's primary grievance was that he was not served with the show cause notice, thus being deprived of an opportunity to present his case and relevant documents. The respondent opposed this, and the CESTAT, after an inquiry into the address used for service, found that the petitioner had consistently provided the same address for communication, which was also used in the present writ petition and the verifying affidavit. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's contention that he did not reside at the address and did not receive the notice.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's contention of non-receipt of the show cause notice was not tenable. The Court noted that the petitioner had consistently provided the same address, "No.526, 9th Main, RPC Layout, Hampinagar, Bengaluru-560 040," for service of notices in multiple proceedings, including the appeal before the CESTAT and the present writ petition. The verifying affidavit filed in the writ petition also confirmed this address. The Court found that the petitioner's claim that he had sold the property and moved out, thus not receiving the notice, was inconsistent with his own provided address and constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The Court observed that while it would normally grant indulgence to an assessee to present documents, the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands due to this wanton disregard and misrepresentation. Therefore, no grounds were made out to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, and the petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was properly served with the show cause notice, and if not, whether he was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present his case before the respondent authority, thereby necessitating a de novo adjudication proceeding? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he was not served with the notice and therefore could not appear before the authority, leading to a denial of his right to present relevant documents. He sought a de novo adjudication proceeding with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Respondent's contention: The respondent opposed the petitioner's claim, highlighting that the petitioner had consistently used the same address for communication in various proceedings, including the appeal before the CESTAT and the present writ petition. The respondent contended that the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of notice was an abuse of the process of the court, as substantiated by the consistent use of the address.
Sections Cited
Articles 226, Articles 227
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court seeking for following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the order in original No.06/2024-25 (Pr.Commr) issued by the Respondent authority dt.24.04.2024 in C.No.GEXCOM/ADJN/ST/COM/92/2021 and conduct the adjudication proceeding de novo by providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner afresh (Annexure-'D');
b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ or Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT dated 06.02.2025 in MISC. Order No.SO/MO/20030/2025(CR) dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure-'E');
c. Issue a Writ of prohibition or a direction in the nature of Writ of prohibition restraining the respondent to initiate any proceeding to recover the demand as the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 by the respondent (Annexure-'D'); HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25059 d. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.04.024 by the respondent (Annexure-'D').
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not served with the notice and as such, could not have appeared before the concerned Authority and hence, the petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity of placing the relevant documents before the respondent. The same is opposed by respondent in the appeal filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. A similar ground is raised by the petitioner which was considered by the Tribunal at paragraph Nos. 2 and 9 of the said order. He submitted that the Appellate Tribunal by referring to the paper book in the appeal filed had caused an enquiry as regards address which had been mentioned for service in the said appeal memo, where the learned counsel for the petitioner had confirmed that it is the same address to which the show cause notice has been issued. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25059
At paragraph No.9, the Appellate Tribunal had categorically observed that the petitioner had consistently maintained official address for communication as "No.526, 9th Main, RPC Layout, Hampinagar, Bengaluru-560 040" and as such, rejected the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was not residing in the said address and did not receive the show cause notice.
Though, the learned counsel for petitioner has sought to contend that one last opportunity has to be granted to the petitioner to be present before the respondent so as to enable him to place the necessary documents on record before the respondent, I am unable to agree to the said contention inasmuch as even in the present petition, the address of the petitioner is shown as "No.526, 9th Main, RPC Layout, Hampinagar, Bengaluru-560 040" and in the verifying affidavit which has been filed, the deponent has categorically stated that his office is at "No.526, 9th Main, RPC Layout, Hampinagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 040". Therefore, the consistent stand of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his office is at the aforesaid address and the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25059 said address has been furnished by the petitioner in all matters including the one before the Appellate Tribunal and before this Court.
When the petitioner himself has provided this address for service in those matters, the question of petitioner contending that the notices have not been served to him on he has sold the said property and moved out cannot be accepted considering that the said submission is purely an abuse of process of Court which has also been categorically observed by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order which can also be stand substantiated by the address shown in the cause title and also verifying affidavit.
Though this Court would extend indulgence to an assessee to place such documents as may be required before the Revenue, if the Assessee approaches this court with clean hands and in a bonafide manner in the present matter, considering that there is wanton disregard made by the petitioner by providing the same address but contending that the said property has been sold, which being an abuse of process of court, no ground is made out by the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25059 petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
S List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.