T. N. Raghurama Shetty vs. Commissioner Of GST (Appeals)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Ashok Kumar Shetty and T.N.Raghunama Shetty, challenged orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Tax (R-2) and the Commissioner of GST (Appeals) (R-1). The impugned orders were passed ex parte because the petitioners claimed they did not receive show cause notices due to being out of station for construction activities. Their appeals to the Appellate Authority were also dismissed. The petitioners asserted that their failure to respond was due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, and they sought an opportunity to present their case. The respondents reiterated their contentions and supported the impugned orders.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders, both the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the subsequent appellate orders, were passed ex parte. The Court acknowledged the petitioners' assertion that their inability to participate in the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court found it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on August 28, 2024, without awaiting further notice. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex parte orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Tax, and subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority, are liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-receipt of notices and bonafide reasons for non-appearance, as per principles of natural justice? The petitioners argued that their absence from the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner was due to being out of station for construction work, constituting sufficient cause. They contended that the ex parte orders were passed without affording them a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. They further argued that their appeals were dismissed without considering these bonafide reasons. The petitioners sought a fresh opportunity to present their case before the original authority. The respondents argued that the petitions lacked merit and supported the impugned orders, reiterating the contentions made in their statement of objections. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for the respondents' arguments.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In these petitions, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
IN W.P.No.15361/2023
"Quash Order-in-Original bearing SL. No. MLR- EXCUS-000-DUDP-DCAC-SS-22-21-22 dated 29-03-2022 passed by 2nd Respondent marked as ANNEXURE "A" and the Order in Appeal bearing No. MLR- EXCUS-000- APP-AS-006-2023-24 dated 02-05-2023 issued by the 1st NC: 2024:KHC:31269 Respondent and marked as ANNEXURE "D" by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari."
IN W.P.No.15314/2023
"Quash the Order-in-Original bearing SL No. MLR- EXCUS-000-DUDP-DCAC-SS-23-21-22 dated 29-03-2022 passed by 2nd Respondent marked as ANNEXURE "A", and the Order in Appeal bearing No. MLR-EXCUS-000- APP-AS-010-2023-24 dated 12-05-2023 passed by the 1st Respondent marked as ANNEXURE "D" by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari."
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the respondent No.2 issuing the Show Cause Notices/Notices prior to passing the impugned orders, the petitioners had gone out of station for the purpose of construction activities and consequently, they did not receive the notices, which culminated in the impugned ex parte assessment orders, and the same deserve to be set aside. It is submitted that aggrieved by the impugned ex parte assessment orders, the petitioners preferred the appeals before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioners to appear before respondent No.2 was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient NC: 2024:KHC:31269 cause, and if one more opportunity is provided to the petitioners, they would file their pleadings, documents etc., before respondent No.2, who are to be directed to consider the same in accordance with law.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and supports the impugned orders and contends that there is no merit in the petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 29.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Tax [in both the petitions] would clearly indicate that the said orders were passed pursuant to ex parte proceedings in which the petitioners neither participated nor issued any reply or filed any documents.
Under these circumstances, in the light of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioners that their inability and omission to submit their reply along with documents to the Show Cause Notices and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide NC: 2024:KHC:31269 reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt justice oriented approach and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 29.03.2022 [Annexure- A] passed by respondent No.2 as well as the impugned orders dated 12.05.2023 and 02.05.2023 [Annexure-D] passed by the Appellate Authority in both the petitions and remit the matters back to respondent No.2 - Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Tax for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a The petitions are hereby partly allowed.
b The impugned Order-in-Original dated 29.03.2022 [Annexure-A] passed by respondent No.2 as well as the impugned Orders dated 12.05.2023 and 02.05.2023 [Annexure-D] passed by the Appellate Authority in both the petitions are set aside. NC: 2024:KHC:31269 c The matters are remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
d The petitioners are directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 28.08.2024 without awaiting further notice from respondent No.2. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
RB
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.