M/S Surakshita Security Force vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a. To quash / set aside the impugned endorsement dated 31.05.2022 bearing No.OC No.GEXCOM/ADJN/ST/ADC/222/2020-ADJN- COMMR-CGST-Bengaluru (N) issued by the respondent as per Annexure – A by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other order or writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari; b. To direct the respondent to provide a fair and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in respect of the petitioner’s rectification applications dated 20.04.2022 as per Annexure – C and thereafter pass a speaking order on such applications in accordance with the law and not to pursue coercive steps until the said order is passed by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other order or writ in the nature of writ of mandamus and / or c. To grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner in the interest of equity and justice.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3
In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the documents produced thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the Rectification application at Annexure – C dated 20.04.2022 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent in order to point out that despite the petitioner specifically seeking / requesting for an opportunity of personal hearing to provide submissions to ensure that their claim of exemption is valid and admissible in accordance with law, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondent has not provided such an opportunity of personal hearing in favour of the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be set aside and matter remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of the rectification application, in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and would
4 support the impugned order and submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the rectification application at Annexure – C dated 20.04.2022 will clearly indicate that at paragraph 11 the petitioner has sought for an opportunity of personal hearing by stating as under: “Our clients seek opportunity of personal hearing to provide submissions to ensure that their claim of exemption is valid and admissibly in accordance with law. We therefore, kindly request you to please afford an opportunity of re-verification of facts already found in the connected records so to enable you to kindly recall the Order-in-Original dated 18.01.2022 and reframe the same by considering all the factual details in the ends of justice.”
In view of specific request made by the petitioner, who sought for an opportunity of personal hearing before the respondent, the impugned order passed by the respondent without affording proper opportunity of
5 personal hearing, is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, the same deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement at Annexure – A dated 31.05.2022 passed by the respondent, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of petitioner’s rectification application at Annexure – C dated 20.04.2022 afresh, in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional
6 pleadings, documents, etc., before the respondent, who shall accept the same and proceed further in accordance with law. JUDGE
SV
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.