Pichappan Thenappan vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Pichappan Thenappan, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated 18.11.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division. The petitioner contended that the services provided were exclusively to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, and thus exempt from GST. The petitioner also claimed that due to certain reasons, they could not effectively present their case before the respondent authority. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and have the case remanded for fresh consideration, offering to furnish necessary particulars to the assessing authority if given an opportunity. The revenue argued that it was the petitioner's duty to produce relevant documents during the opportunity granted, and the burden of proof lies with the assessee.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition on equitable consideration, granting the petitioner one opportunity to present their case. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they failed to produce supporting documents evidencing the supply of services to the HR&CE Department, but also acknowledged that the petitioner had ample proof to be placed before the assessing authority and the reasons for not availing the earlier opportunity. The Court held that the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 would be set aside upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount, taking into account the sum of Rs.4,23,300/- already paid. The matter would then be remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration, where the petitioner must appear and file all supporting documents and replies. The first respondent would then consider these afresh and pass orders in accordance with the law. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to present their case afresh before the assessing authority, considering their claim of exemption from GST on services provided to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and their inability to effectively represent their case earlier? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and taxability of services). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they provided services only to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, which is exempt from GST. They further submitted that they could not effectively use the opportunity to represent their case before the respondent and requested a fresh opportunity to furnish necessary particulars. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner had a duty to produce relevant documents when the opportunity was granted, and the burden of proof for claiming exemption lies on the assessee.