Manoj Kumar Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Singh, is aggrieved by an order dated February 13, 2024 (Annexure-P/4). The petitioner's primary contentions were that an email seeking adjournment, sent by their Advocate, was not considered, and that no pre-consultation was conducted. The total tax liability imposed on the petitioner exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs. The respondents are various authorities under the Central GST and Central Excise departments, including the Union of India.
Held
The Court held that an email sent on the date of hearing, in the afternoon, is not a sufficient ground for an authority to adjourn a matter. The Court noted that if an Advocate faces inconvenience, they or their representative should appear before the authority to express their inability. Regarding the contention of lack of pre-consultation, the Court observed that this is a matter that can be agitated before the appellate authority. Consequently, since the impugned order (Annexure-P/4) is an appealable order, the High Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal, with standard exceptions regarding limitation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the authority erred by not considering the petitioner's Advocate's email for adjournment, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness). 2. Whether the absence of pre-consultation vitiates the impugned order? (Question of law, concerning procedural requirements). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the email seeking adjournment was not considered, and that a pre-consultation was mandatory before passing the order, especially given the significant tax liability. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue. However, the Court's observations suggest that the revenue's stance implicitly supported the validity of the impugned order and the procedure followed.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 13-05-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the Annexure-P/4 order passed on 13.02.2024. 2. The first contention raised is that Annexure-P/3 email for adjournment filed by the Advocate was not considered. The Patna High Court CWJC No.5371 of 2024 dt.13-05-2024 2/2 second contention is that no pre-consultation was carried out. The total liability mulcted on the petitioner was above Rs. 50 lakhs.
Insofar as the contention regarding consideration of the email, when a matter is posted for hearing, if the Advocate had any inconvenience, he or his representative should have gone before the authority and expressed his inability. The email itself is dated 16.01.2024, the date of hearing and it is issued only at 1:33PM. We do not think that merely on the basis of an email issued, the authority could have adjourned the matter that too sent in the afternoon. As far as the consultation is concerned, it is a matter, which can be agitated before the appellate authority.
Considering the fact that Annexure-P/4 is an appellable order, we do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal, with just exceptions on limitation.
Sujit/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 15.05.2024 Transmission Date
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.