M/S Intelligence Security Of INDIA, A Proprietary Establishment vs. The Union Of INDIA

CWJC/6804/2023HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01039870202328 March 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR,THE CHIEF JUSTICE-3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Intelligence Security of India, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the revenue authorities. The petitioner's sole contention was that no proper notice was issued before the impugned order was passed. The petitioner claimed that a notice issued during the Covid period was undelivered, with the postal endorsement indicating the addressee had left the address, and thus the petitioner was unaware of it. The revenue, however, pointed out that the petitioner's own reply indicated receipt of a notice and a request for time. The impugned order referenced notices issued on 17.08.2018 and 10.09.2020, and the petitioner had sought time to reply after receiving the 17.08.2018 notice, but no reply was filed thereafter.

Held

The Court held that there was no reason to conclude that no notice was issued, given the petitioner's own reply indicating receipt and request for time, and the reference to specific notices in the impugned order. However, the Court noted that the petitioner approached the High Court within a reasonable period after the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Appellate Authority was instructed to consider the appeal on its merits without being influenced by any delay caused in filing. The writ petition was closed with these directions, and the appeal was to be disposed of on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the revenue authorities issued a proper notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 01.02.2023, as required by law? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that no proper notice was issued. They specifically highlighted that a notice issued during the Covid period was undelivered, with the postal endorsement indicating the addressee had left the address, leading to the petitioner's unawareness of the proceedings. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that a notice was indeed issued and received by the petitioner, evidenced by the petitioner's own reply seeking time to respond. They referred to notices dated 17.08.2018 and 10.09.2020, and noted that the petitioner had sought two months' time after the 17.08.2018 notice but failed to file a detailed reply thereafter.

Sections Cited

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies provisions related to notice and appeal under GST law.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6804 of 2023 ====================================================== M/s Intelligence Security of India, A Proprietary Establishment Having its Office at first floor, 30, Patliputra Colony, P.S. - Patliputra, Patna - 800013, through its Proprietor Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Ram Yash Singh, Male, Age about 53 years. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Patna. 3. The Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Patna. 4. The Superintendent CGST and CX, Gandhi Maidan Range, Patna. 5. The Superintendent (ADJN.), Central GST and Central Excise, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deo Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr.K.N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General Mr.Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, CGST & CX ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 9 28-03-2024 The only contention raised in the above writ petition is with respect to no notice having been issued before the order was passed. The impugned order is dated 01.02.2023 and bears DIN-20230260XU000071767B.

The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically takes us to the brief facts of the case as narrated therein. A notice was issued, but it was undelivered and the endorsement in the returned postal article also showed the addressee having 2/3 left the address. The learned counsel submits that it was during the Covid period and hence, the petitioner was not aware of such a notice issued.

Learned Additional Solicitor General points out that the reply of the petitioner itself indicates that he received a notice and sought for time. Annexure-4 is the reply to the letter issued by the Department on 17.09.2020. It is seen from the impugned order that reference is made to notice issued on 17.08.2018 and then on 10.09.2020. Just before the notice on 10.09.2020, the petitioner had received the notice on 17.08.2018. The petitioner had sought for two months additional time to submit a detailed reply explaining the difference. No reply had been filed thereafter.

In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to hold that there was no notice issued. However, we find that the order itself was dated 01.02.2023 and the petitioner approached this Court on 03.05.2023 within a reasonable period. Hence, the petitioner has the appellate remedy, which cannot be frustrated. We direct the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of judgment upon which the Appellate Authority would consider the same without looking at the delay caused.

3/3

The appeal shall be disposed of on merits. The writ petition stands closed with the above directions.

Anushka/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) U

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.