Rajendran .S vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. Regarding the issue of service of notice, the Court noted that the petitioner himself admitted that the GST registration was obtained at an address that had since changed, and the notices were sent to this registered address. The petitioner's claim that he was unaware of the proceedings until he received a mobile notification was viewed with skepticism, especially since he did not dispute that the address to which the notices were sent was not his residential address. The Court found that the letters sent by the respondents were returned with endorsements like 'no such door number' and 'insufficient address,' which, coupled with the petitioner's admission about the address change, indicated that the petitioner had not provided an updated address to the authorities. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, implicitly holding that the respondents had taken reasonable steps to serve notice and that the petitioner's failure to update his address was the primary cause of non-receipt. The issues of limitation and double taxation were not explicitly decided upon as the petition was dismissed on the grounds of service of notice.

Facts

The petitioner, S. Rajendran, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking to quash an Order in Original No. MAD-ST-ASC-138-2022 dated 12.09.2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai-II Division. The petitioner's primary contention was that he was not put on notice at any stage, from the show cause notice to the final order, violating principles of natural justice. He also argued that the respondents failed to comply with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the service of summons. The respondents submitted that notices were sent to the petitioner's registered address but were returned with endorsements indicating non-service. They also claimed notices were sent via email, which was delivered. The petitioner acknowledged that his GST registration was obtained at an old address, which had since been changed, and that he only became aware of the impugned order upon receiving a mobile notification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order in Original No. MAD-ST-ASC-138-2022 dated 12.09.2022, passed by the first respondent, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of notice on the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondents complied with the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the service of summons? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was not served with the show cause notice or the impugned order, thus violating the principles of natural justice. He contended that the respondents failed to comply with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates specific procedures for serving summons, including affixing a copy to a conspicuous part of the premises if not personally served. The petitioner also raised pleas of limitation and double taxation, though these were not elaborated upon in the provided text. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that notices were sent to the petitioner's registered address, but these were returned with endorsements indicating non-service. They further stated that notices were also sent via email and were delivered to the petitioner. The respondents implicitly argued that their actions constituted due diligence in serving notice.