B Mohaideen Kamal Batcha vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer St
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, B. Mohideen Kamal Batcha, challenged an order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (Respondent) concerning GST for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner had previously responded to notices ASMT 10 and GST DRC 01. Despite multiple reminders for personal hearing, the petitioner contended that one notice lacked specific time and date details, leading to a violation of natural justice. The petitioner also highlighted that a significant amount, approximately Rs. 38 lakhs, had been recovered from their accounts against a total demand of Rs. 35,77,846/-. The petitioner sought an opportunity for a fresh personal hearing on merits.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 03.04.2023 was to be set aside and the case remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The reasoning was based on the arguments advanced by both parties and the fact that a substantial amount of Rs. 38 lakhs had already been recovered from the petitioner's accounts. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the procedural irregularity in the personal hearing notices. The Court directed the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within 60 days. The impugned order, once quashed, was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was granted liberty to file additional representations and was directed to appear for a personal hearing on 15.07.2024, with final orders expected by 30.08.2024. The issue of the merits of the case itself was not decided, but the procedural defect led to the remittance.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 03.04.2023, passed by the respondent, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the notices for personal hearing under the relevant GST enactments? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice because one of the notices for personal hearing did not specify the time or date, rendering it defective. They relied on the High Court's decision in Shakthi Steel Trading vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vandavasi. The petitioner also asserted that they have a case on merits and requested an opportunity for a fresh personal hearing. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the Writ Petition was devoid of merits and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the GST enactments.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 03.04.2023 bearing reference GSTIN:33AISPM0239K1Z1 for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner has replied to the notice in ASMT 10 dated 20.07.2022 vide reply dated 19.12.2022. Similarly, the petitioner has also replied to the notices in GST DRC 01 dated 14.12.2022 vide reply dated 16.01.2023. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with three reminders for personal hearing on 25.01.2023, 10.02.2023 and 16.03.2023 and personal hearing was also proposed to be held on 01.02.2023 and 20.03.2023. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though three notices were issued, the second notice was issued without mentioning time or date for personal hearing and therefore, there has been manifest violation under 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the respective GST enactments.
That apart, it is submitted that the same subject has been explained by and out of the total demand of Rs.35,77,846/- (1788923x2) towards SGST and CGST.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be given one opportunity to reply the case afresh in personal hearing, before the respondent as the petitioner has a case on merits.
The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and considering the fact that Rs.38 lakhs appears to have been recovered from and out of the petitioner's account, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit back the case to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order.
The petitioner is given liberty to give additional representation, if any. Needless to state, the petitioner shall appear positively before the respondent on 15.07.2024. 12. It is expected that the final personal hearing will be held on or before 29.07.2024 and final orders will be passed on or before 30.08.2024. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 24.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST), West Veli Street Circle, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.