M/S. Ravi Bangalore Raghavendra Proprietary Concern vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ravi Bangalore Raghavendra Proprietary Concern, represented by its authorized person, is challenging an ex parte order dated February 18, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Commissionerate, Bangalore East, under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner states that they wound up their business in 2017 to relocate to the United States and consequently had limited access to their business premises. They claim their visits to India were solely for attending to ailing parents and after their father's demise. The petitioner learned about the impugned order only after its issuance. The respondent argued that the petitioner had a statutory obligation to inform the authorities of any change in address, which they failed to do.

Held

The Court considered the submissions and observed that the respondent did not seriously contest the reasons provided by the petitioner for their failure to respond to the notices. The Court was of the view that for a complete and effective determination of the tax liability, the petitioner, who pleaded bonafides, should be granted an opportunity to appear before the respondent. Consequently, the impugned order dated February 18, 2022, was quashed. The proceedings were restored to the respondent for reconsideration, with the petitioner being granted an opportunity to present their case. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on April 19, 2023, without further notice. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.02.2022, passed by the respondent under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, is barred by limitation. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the order is barred by limitation, implying that the proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed time limits. They also contend that their failure to respond to Show Cause Notices was bonafide due to their relocation and lack of access to business premises, and therefore, they should be granted an opportunity to present their case. Respondent's Contention: The respondent does not controvert the circumstances presented by the petitioner regarding relocation but argues that the petitioner is under a statutory obligation to inform the authorities of any change in address. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot claim a lack of opportunity.