M/S. Dileep Chakravarthi Sunkari vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Dileep Chakravarthi Sunkari, filed a writ petition challenging an Order in Original (OIO) dated 31.10.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, and a subsequent recovery notice dated 24.01.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax to Indusind Bank. The OIO pertained to the financial year 2014-2015. The petitioner contended that they neither received personal hearing notices nor the impugned OIO, only becoming aware of it through the recovery notice. The OIO itself noted that personal hearing notices were returned undelivered. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, conceded that the OIO and recovery notice could be set aside, with liberty to the petitioner to participate in fresh proceedings after the show cause notice stage.
Held
The Court held that in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the impugned Order in Original dated 31.10.2023 and the recovery notice dated 24.01.2025 are set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before Respondent No. 1 (Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax) on 27.02.2025 at 11:30 AM, without requiring any separate notice. The petitioner will be at liberty to file their response to the show cause notice. Respondent No. 1 is directed to provide personal hearing notices to the petitioner and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, were also closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order in Original dated 31.10.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, is illegal, arbitrary, improper, violative of the Principles of Natural Justice, and barred by limitation under the Finance Act, 1994, due to non-receipt of personal hearing notices by the petitioner? 2. Whether the recovery notice dated 24.01.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, is consequently illegal and liable to be set aside? The petitioner argued that the non-receipt of personal hearing notices and the OIO itself, coupled with the fact that the OIO acknowledged the returned undelivered notices, violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner also raised the issue of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994. The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, fairly conceded that the impugned OIO and recovery notice could be set aside. The revenue agreed to a procedure where the petitioner would appear for fresh proceedings after the show cause notice stage, and the matter would be decided afresh.
Sections Cited
Finance Act, 1994
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
,/ I
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA IVRIT PETITION No.4294 of 2025 ORDER (Per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul): Sri K. Aroah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos.l to 4 and Sri K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, for respondent No.5. 2. With the consent, Iinally heard. 3 This Writ Petition assails the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 31.10.2023 and also the recovery notice dated 24.O1.2025. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner neither received personai hearing notices nor received the impugned OIO. The petitioner carne to know about the impugned OIO only when it was served with the aforesaid impugned recovery notice. Attention of this Court is drawn on paragraph No.6 of the impugned OIO wherein it is categorically mentioned that the personal hearing notices were "returned undelivered" by the postal authorities. 5 This being the admitted position, learned Senior ( ( Standing Counsel for CBIC fairly submitted that the impugned
2 OIO and recovery notice may be set aside and by reservrng liberty to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings after the stage of show cause notice and the competent authority may be directed to decide the matter afresh, because in similar matters' this Court has followed the same procedure'
In view of consensus arrived at' the impugned OIO and recovery notice are set aside' The petitioner shall no$/ appear before respondent No. I on 27 'O2'2O25 at 11:30 A'M" for which' no separate notice will be required to be issued' The petitioner may file its response to the show cause notice' Respondent No' 1 shall provide personal hearing notices to the petitioner and decide the matter a-fresh in accordance with la'*' expeditiously' AccordinglY, this Writ Petition 1S disposed of without 7 expresslng €rn) onion on merits of the case' No costs' Interlocutory applications, if any pending' shall also stand closed. //' . K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Gachibowli.CGST Division' Ranoareddv CGST Commissio"e;;b, GSt Bhavan' H-No- 10-3-301-303' 4th tj;#:b;;i "'["]g nG, H, ;ivr. ndi r, rrra sa o ra n k' Hvd e ra bad' Telansana - 500028 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,-Gachibowli CGST Division' nr"."ir""ii, ccsr con',mitsion"i"i6, esi'anavan' H- No- 1 0-3-30 1 -303' 4th H;#:!;;il""[":sG H;;;v," nisir, tvtasau rank' Hvderabad' relansana - 500028. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Chandanagar CG|T Range' H'No- 10-3- s0i-505-aih Froor, serene iJeights, Humayun-nagar' Masab Tank' Hyderabad. Telangana - 500028. 4 The Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangared{v 99ST Commissionerate' GaiE"n;;;;, i.No--1-e8/7/43, vlP Hills, Jaihind Enclave' Madhapur. Hvderahad Telanqana - 500081. _, -tri!!-!!ril I I ,..lL
-'-7 t #ffff|.ij3#ry,l,:i i;Jtl,:, rvrinistry of Finance, 4th Froor, A_wins. shasrri /
The Branch [r,4anager, lndusind Bank (IFSC- 1ND80001900),G28 Astrat ll9,9hq Punjagurta, Rog!-!g-t, Banjara Hi[s, Near Nagarjuna Circte, Hyoerabad. I elangana_500034. 7. One CC to Sri K. Aroah, Advocate tOpUCl B. One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes (senior standing counsel for CBIC) loPUCl
One CC to Sri K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy, SC for Central Government[OPUC] , ., 10.Two CD Copies GJP / J
\ HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 ORDER WP.No.4294 of 2025 DISPOSING OF FTHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS i, !- STI 16: t !) 2 z tlri 2p5 z t b Or. , .r ri'fl ,/r( /.4 5
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.