Console Management Consultants PVT LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax Kolkata South Commissionerate And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Console Management Consultants Private Limited, challenged an adjudication order dated January 16, 2024, through a writ petition, which was subsequently dismissed by the learned writ court. The appellant's primary contention was that the show cause notice was not properly served. The revenue authorities stated that an initial letter regarding mismatch dated September 27, 2019, was returned 'unserved' by registered post. Subsequently, three summonses were also returned as undelivered. Two further summonses were sent via email to the registered email ID and appeared to have been delivered. The appellant appeared for a personal hearing on November 18, 2023, and reiterated their claim of not receiving the show cause notice, alleging it was sent to a wrong email ID, a fact they had communicated to the department on November 8, 2023.
Held
The Court held that the issue of whether the show cause notice was properly served is a disputed question of fact. It found that the statutory appellate remedy provided under the CGST Act, namely an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), is both efficacious and effective. The appellate authority is empowered to consider factual aspects, examine the original adjudication file, and make a decision. Therefore, the learned Single Bench was correct in not interfering with the adjudication order and in directing the appellant to avail the statutory appellate remedy. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Bench. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant was granted permission to file an appeal before the statutory appellate authority within 30 days from the receipt of the order, and the appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal without reference to limitation if filed within this period.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice was properly served on the appellant, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the adjudicating authority to pass the order dated January 16, 2024? (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Contentions: Appellant: Argued that the show cause notice was sent to an incorrect email ID, which was communicated to the department. They relied on the principle that proper service of notice is essential for a valid adjudication. Revenue/State: Contended that multiple attempts were made to serve notices, including registered post and email, and that the appellant's conduct should be considered. They argued that the postal authorities returned the notices as undelivered, and email communication appeared to have been received.
Sections Cited
CGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024 Item No.5 gd/s MAT/1185/2024 IA NO: CAN/1/2024
Ms. Anupa Banerjee ..for the Appellant.
Mr. U.S. Bhattacharyya, Ms. Ekta Sinha ..for the CGST Authorities.
This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 9th April, 2024 in WPA 8576 of 2024 in which the appellant had challenged the adjudication order dated 16th January, 2024. 2. Before the learned writ court and before this court the contention of the appellant is that the show cause notice was not served.
It is pointed out by Mr. Bhattahcayya, learned senior standing counsel assisted by Ms. Sinha that the conduct of the assessee should be noted.
As could be seen from the adjudication order dated 16th January, 2024 the initial letter pointing out mismatch dated 27.09.2019 was sent by registered post which was returned “unserved”. Thereafter three summons have been issued but the summons also were returned by the Postal Authorities as it could not be served in the registered address. Thereafter two
2 summons were issued and they were sent through e- mail in the registered e-mail ID and it appears to have been delivered.
The assessee in response to the notice of personal hearing initially took a stand by letter requesting time to submit reply to the show cause notice.
Subsequently, a personal hearing was fixed in which they appeared on 18.11.2023 and submitted that they did not receive the show cause notice.
The learned advocate appearing for the appellant would strenously contend that the show cause notice has been sent by e-mail to the wrong e- mail ID and this was pointed out by the assessee vide letter which was received by the department on 08.11.2023. 8. The issues involved in the instant case is a disputed question of fact which needs to be agitated before the appellate authority as the appellate provision provided under the Act, namely, an appeal to the Commiossioner (Appeals) CGST and CX Kolkata is not only efficacious but also an effective remedy, the appellate authority will be entitled to consider the factual aspects, call for the original adjudication file and thereafter take a decision.
Therefore, the learned Single Bench was right in not interfering with the order of adjudication and
3 relegating the appellant to avail the statutory appellate remedy.
Thus, we find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench.
Accordingly appeal fails and dismissed.
The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeallant may be given reasonable opportunity to file the appeal before the statutory appellate authority.
The appeallant is permitted to file the appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of server copy of this order and if the same is done, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal without reference to a limitation.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.