M/S. C. Siva Anand, Anand Hardwares And Electricals vs. The Superintendent Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated June 26, 2023, passed by the respondent was a non-speaking order. The Court found that the respondent had not adequately considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in their reply dated April 26, 2023, nor had they discussed the petitioner's contention regarding the payment of tax through Input Tax Credit. The Court noted that the impugned order merely stated that the petitioner failed to pay interest and their reply was not tenable, without providing any detailed reasoning. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and considering their reply and records. The Court directed that this exercise be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in light of the principles laid down in M/s. Refex Industries Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, reported in 2020(2) TMI 794 – Madras. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Anand Hardwares and Electricals, represented by its Proprietor Mr. Chellan Sivanand, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an assessment order (OC No.289/2023, Order in Original No.GST/TNVL/SUPDT/MTM/37/2023) dated June 26, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, Marthandham Range. The petitioner contended that they had paid the entire tax liability using Input Tax Credit (ITC) for all periods and that the impugned order failed to consider their reply dated April 26, 2023. The petitioner also claimed to have paid the entire tax prior to the assessment proceedings. The impugned order, described as a one-line order, stated that the petitioner failed to pay interest and their reply was not tenable, holding them liable for an interest amount of Rs. 6,04,427/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated June 26, 2023, passed by the respondent is a non-speaking order and violates the principles of natural justice? (Question of law) 2. Whether the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's reply dated April 26, 2023, and the fact that the entire tax liability was paid via Input Tax Credit? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. They contended that the respondent had not discussed any of the grounds raised in their reply and that the order was a mere one-line pronouncement. The petitioner also asserted that they had already paid the entire tax liability, including interest, prior to the assessment proceedings, and that considering the Input Tax Credit, there would be no outstanding tax liability. They relied on the principles laid down in M/s. Refex Industries Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, reported in 2020(2) TMI 794 - Madras. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent did not present any specific arguments in the judgment excerpt provided, other than the content of the impugned order which stated that the petitioner failed to pay interest and their reply was not tenable.