Dnc Infrastructure Private Limited vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

DNC INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI D NARESH CHOWDARY K. SQUARE, H.NO. 1-62/2, PLOT NO.115, 4TH FLOOR, KAVURI HILLS, MADHAPUR ROAD, HYDERABAD - 500072 TELANGANA STATE

UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT (RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 3 NOT NECESSARY)

The petitioner contends the following:-

A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. In this counter affidavit, it is stated that an inspection of the premises, given in the registration of the petitioner had been inspected. As the petitioner was not conducting business from the said place, a notice dated 23.08.2024, was issued. In response to this notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation, dated 03.09.2024. In this explanation, it was stated that the petitioner was operating his business in a co-working space, located at Flat No.101, D.No.10-28-2/1/1, Waltair Main Road, Vizag and an another co-working space at D.No.73-1-10/1, IV Floor, Patamata Main Road, Opp Durga Mahal, Vijayawada. The agreements under which these premises were taken by the petitioner are dated 19.10.2023 and 01.08.2024 respectively.

It is further stated, in the counter affidavit, that the landlord of the original office in Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa, had been contacted regarding the occupation of the premises, by the petitioner. The said landlord informed the respondent that the petitioner had executed a rental agreement but had not occupied the house and subsequently requested to cancel the agreement. It also appears that the property had been transferred to another person who specifically stated that he had no knowledge of the petitioner or the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition.

The 1st respondent had specifically stated that these facts make it clear that the petitioner had never conducted any business from the declared place of business and as such, was in violation of Rule-21(a) of the CGST Rules.

Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was unable to inform the respondents for a change in business. This was because the assessment of the petitioner was being taken up and the assessment authority had specifically rejected the request of the petitioner for a change in the address, so the assessment file is not transferred out to another authority. He would also submit that the impugned order, dated 13.09.2024, suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, as mandated under Section -29 of the CGST Act.

Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would draw the attention of this Court to the specific averments, in the counter affidavit that personal hearing was fixed on 04.09.2024, and that the authorized representative of the petitioner had come to the office, of the respondents, on that day, and furnished the detailed written submissions vide letter, dated 03.09.2024. She would submit that in such circumstances, it cannot be held that an opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the petitioner. She would further contend that the authorized representative did not seek any further adjournments or the postponement of the personal hearing and had handed over the detailed submissions. She submits that in 6

The petitioner while contending that he was unable to furnish the details of change of address, has not produced any material before us to demonstrate that any attempt was made since October-2023, to inform the authorities about the change of address. Further, the contention of the petitioner that such change of address could not be intimated on account the pending assessment proceedings also cannot be accepted inasmuch as the petitioner was required, under law, to intimate the change of address within 15 days from the date of change, whereas the petitioner, despite shifting office in October-2023, did not choose to make any such application, till 23.08.2024 when the show-cause was issued.

The contention of the petitioner that, no personal hearing was granted, would also have to be rejected as the notice for personal hearing was given and an authorized representative of the petitioner appeared before the authority on the date mentioned in the said notice. Further, the fact that the authorized representative of the petitioner had chosen to handover the written explanation on that day would strengthen the version of the respondents that no adjournment or postponement was sought and the authorized representative had handed over the written submissions and left.

Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the last line in the reply, dated 03.09.2024. This line reads as follows:- “We request a personal hearing to present further details, if necessary”.

In the view of this Court, the said request is not a clear request for a further date and only a request for hearing if the authority found it necessary. In view of the fact that the authority had passed an Order, dated 13.09.2024, the authority obviously did not find any necessity to seek any further clarification.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said impugned Order, dated 13.09.2024 and this Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.