V.N. Jayakumar vs. The Intelligence Officer

Facts

The appellant, V.N. Jayakumar, proprietor of M/s. Royal Chest, challenged an assessment order (Ext.P4) passed by the Assistant Commissioner (2nd respondent) under the SGST/CGST Act, 2017. The appellant contended that the order violated principles of natural justice. The Intelligence Officer (1st respondent) had issued a show cause notice (Ext.P1) proposing a demand of `25,12,672/- along with interest and penalty for alleged unaccounted transactions. The appellant submitted a reply (Ext.P2). The appellant argued that the assessment order was passed without properly verifying his reply and the seized records. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, directing the appellant to pursue the appellate remedy. The present appeal is against this dismissal.

Held

The Court held that the assessment order (Ext.P4) did not suffer from a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that a reading of Ext.P4 indicated that the Assistant Commissioner (2nd respondent) had considered the reply submitted by the appellant. Therefore, the contention that the reply was not verified with reference to seized records was not substantiated based on the order itself. The Court reasoned that the appellant had an adequate alternative remedy of appeal, and all grounds raised, including the alleged violation of natural justice, could be effectively agitated before the appellate authority. The Court found no merit in the appeal against the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (2nd respondent) violated the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the appellant's reply (Ext.P2) and seized records, thereby contravening Section 74 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice as the adjudicating authority (2nd respondent) did not properly verify the submissions made in his reply (Ext.P2) with reference to the seized records from his business premises. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents, through the learned Senior Government Pleader, argued that a perusal of the assessment order (Ext.P4) indicated that the 2nd respondent had indeed considered the appellant's reply. Therefore, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, and the appellant could raise all these grounds before the appellate authority.