M Mahalingam vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court set aside the impugned orders dated March 18, 2022, and January 10, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, on humanitarian grounds, acknowledging the petitioner's age and critical health condition. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to provide the petitioner with one final opportunity to present his case on January 31, 2024. Following this opportunity, the Assistant Commissioner is to pass a decision within two weeks. Consequently, the Court ordered the defreezing of the petitioner's bank account, which had been frozen by the State Bank of India as a result of the impugned orders. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, but the core finding was based on humanitarian considerations and ensuring a fair hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, M. Mahalingam, a 76-year-old cancer patient, filed two writ petitions challenging an assessment order dated March 18, 2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, demanding service tax of Rs. 38,26,706/- for the period April 2015 to June 2017. He also challenged a consequential detention notice dated January 10, 2023, imposing penalty and interest. The petitioner contended that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity to present his case before the orders were passed and that his bank account was frozen by the State Bank of India as a result. The respondents argued that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for hearings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order and detention notice are violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, considering the petitioner's claim of not being provided sufficient opportunity to be heard? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and were arbitrary, violating his constitutional rights. He also highlighted his critical health condition as a cancer patient aged 76 years. Revenue's arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner was provided with several opportunities for hearing on multiple dates (January 31, 2022, February 16, 2022, February 18, 2022, March 3, 2022, and March 10, 2022) and that he failed to utilize them, filing the writ petition as if no opportunity was given.