M/S Vulcan Metallurgical Works vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath., learned AGA for the respondents have appeared in person.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that an application in I.A.No.2/2024 is filed for deletion of the name of the second respondent appearing in the CTS records. Counsel, therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. Learned AGA submits that a memo has been filed stating that the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforecement-1) Belagavi has given an intimation to the ADLR, City Survey Belagavi to delete the name of the second respondent from the CTS records. Learned AGA, therefore, submits that a memo may be placed on record and an appropriate order may be passed. Submission is noted. The memo is placed on record. NC: 2024:KHC-D:10817 Upon receipt of the communication from Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforecement-1) Belagavi the ADLR, City Survey Belagavi is directed to delete the name of the second respondent in the CTS records of CTS No.1495. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2024 is allowed.
The short facts are these: The petitioner is a registered partnership firm incorporated on 01.01.2016 for carrying on the business of purchase, sales, and investments into all types of manufacturing and sales of ferrous and non-ferrous material trading in ferrous and non-ferrous material and manufacture, sales and servicing of equipment and machinery. From 01.07.2017, the GST was introduced by the Central and the State Governments. The petitioner got registered under the GST Act and a registration certificate was also issued to the petitioner on 28.11.2017. The petitioner has its registered office at Sy.No.29, Plot No.2A, BK Kangrali Industrial Area, Belagavi. The second respondent inspected the premises of the petitioner on 26.09.2018. On verification of the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner, the second respondent NC: 2024:KHC-D:10817 issued a show notice to the petitioner and proceeded to pass an order on 29.06.2019 under Section 74 and Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST and KGST Act. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107(11) of the KGST Act before the first respondent. The first respondent vide order dated 04.08.2020 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the authority concerned made the entry showing the name of the second respondent in the CTS records. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
The principal ground on which this Court is asked to quash the order dated 29.06.2019 is that it is opposed to the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was not heard as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. From a plain reading of Section 75(4), it is noticeably clear that even in a case where a person is chargeable with tax NC: 2024:KHC-D:10817 or penalty and has not requested a personal hearing, the Department is bound to give a personal hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated against such a person. In the present case, such an exercise has not been made by the Department concerned. In the circumstances, the second respondent was bound to give a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing an order on 29.06.2019. This would be irrespective of the fact as to whether the petitioner has asked for such a personal hearing or not. The order has been passed without giving any personal hearing to the petitioner and the same violates principles of natural justice and ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Therefore, the orders at Annexures-C and F are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed.
The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order passed by the second respondent dated 29.06.2019 vide Annexure-C and the order dated:04.08.2020 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No.JCCT/AP/BGV/GST-25 of 2019/20/B-264 vide Annexure-F are quashed. NC: 2024:KHC-D:10817 Because of the quashing of orders at Annexure-C and F, the second respondent shall give an opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner; after considering all the contentions of the petitioner, shall pass an appropriate order following the law, within four weeks from the date on which a personal hearing is given to the petitioner.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 12
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.