Boregowda V vs. The Commissioner Of Cenral Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Boregowda V, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated January 27, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner contended that they were not served with the show cause notice or notices for personal hearing. The impugned order itself noted that the notices were returned undelivered with the remark "Insufficient address. Return to sender." Despite this, the respondent proceeded to pass the order. The petitioner argued that this violated the principles of natural justice as no sufficient or reasonable opportunity was provided.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It noted that the impugned order itself recorded that the show cause notices and notices for personal hearing were not served upon the petitioner and had been returned with the postal endorsement 'Insufficient address'. Despite this acknowledgment, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order without granting any opportunity, let alone a reasonable or sufficient one, to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court found that the order deserved to be set aside. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated January 27, 2023, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner undertook to appear before the respondent on February 19, 2024, and liberty was granted to submit pleadings and documents, with the respondent directed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-service of notice on the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because the respondent authorities themselves recorded that the notices, including the show cause notice and personal hearing notices, were returned as undelivered due to an "Insufficient address." Despite this finding, the respondent proceeded to pass the order without providing a reasonable or sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner sought to have the order set aside and the matter remitted back for reconsideration. Respondents' Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that there was no merit in the petition and that it was liable to be dismissed.