Karupanna Gounder Natarajan Suresh Kumar vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, Karupanna Gounder Natarajan Suresh Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging Order in Original No. 22/2022-ST-ADJN dated 27.09.2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Karur Division. The impugned order was addressed to the petitioner's current GST registration address. However, the notices preceding this order were served at the petitioner's previous address, where they had registered for Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent contended that the notice was served via email, to which the petitioner did not respond.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be given one opportunity to present their grievances against the proposals in the show cause notice. The Court noted that while the impugned order was addressed to the petitioner's current address, the preceding notices were served at a previous address. Although the respondent claimed email service of the notice, the Court found merit in allowing the petitioner to respond. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondent. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within 90 days of receiving a copy of this order. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice dated 22.10.2021. The petitioner was expected to file a reply within 30 days, and would be heard before any fresh orders are passed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.09.2022, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of improper service of prior notices, particularly concerning the petitioner's change of address and the reliance on email service for notices that preceded the final order, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that notices preceding the impugned order were served at a previous address, and despite the respondent's claim of email service, the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. The petitioner sought to quash the order due to these procedural lapses. Respondent's Contention: The respondent argued that the notice preceding the impugned order was served via email, and the petitioner failed to respond. The respondent relied on the fact that the impugned order was addressed to the petitioner's current registered address.