M/S Mahaveers Marketing vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial

Held

The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders dated March 31, 2021 (Annexures-A and A1), and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration. The Court found that while the respondent's orders referred to the petitioner's objections, they did not adequately consider or advert to the specific replies submitted by the petitioner on March 29, 2021, and March 30, 2021, nor the requests for additional documents. The Court reasoned that this failure to consider the petitioner's submissions amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice and indicated a lack of application of mind. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, taking into account the petitioner's replies, and to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent was also directed to furnish copies of available documents to the petitioner prior to proceeding further. The petitioner was granted liberty to file additional objections/replies with relevant documents.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Mahaveer’s Marketing, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging orders dated March 31, 2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Mandya, under Section 129(3) of the KGST/CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had submitted replies to notices issued by the respondent on March 19, 2021, on March 29, 2021, and further replies on March 30, 2021, requesting additional documents to enable them to file necessary objections. The petitioner's grievance was that the respondent proceeded to pass the orders without considering these replies and the requests for documents, rendering the orders cryptic, unreasoned, and non-speaking.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 31.03.2021, passed by the Respondent under Section 129(3) of the KGST/CGST Act, are liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to consider their replies dated March 29, 2021, and March 30, 2021, and the request for additional documents before passing the impugned orders. They asserted that the orders were cryptic, unreasoned, and passed without application of mind, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Respondent's contentions: The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent submitted that there was no merit in the petition and that it was liable to be dismissed.