M/S. Chinnamanur Sri Annai Abirami Chit (P) LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the writ petition ought not to be entertained as there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The Court found merit in the submission of the respondents that the impugned order was passed after issuing a notice and considering the petitioner's objections, despite the petitioner not availing the granted personal hearings. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes, the Court emphasized that while the power under Article 226 is wide, it must be exercised with self-imposed restraint, and writ petitions should not be entertained if an alternative effective remedy is available, unless there is a gross violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction. The Court found no such grounds in this case. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal, and the time spent in pursuing the writ petition would be excluded for limitation purposes.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Chinnamanur Sri Annai Abirami Chit (P) Ltd., challenged an Order-in-Original No.MDU-ST-AC-08-2021 dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The order proposed to treat a sum of Rs.75,62,940/- for the periods 2015-16 and 2016-17 as the value of taxable services rendered by the petitioner, a chit fund foreman. The petitioner contended that abatement should be granted as per Notification No.26/2012-ST and that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was unwarranted. The petitioner argued that these aspects were not considered by the assessing authority. The respondents submitted that the objections were considered and a reasoned order was passed, and that the petitioner repeatedly failed to attend personal hearings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No.MDU-ST-AC-08-2021 dated 30.11.2021, passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, suffers from non-application of mind regarding the petitioner's contentions on abatement and the invocation of the extended period of limitation. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to consider their submissions regarding the eligibility for abatement under Notification No.26/2012-ST and that the invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified. They contended that these omissions rendered the assessment order bad for want of proper consideration. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered, as evidenced by paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order. They further argued that the petitioner failed to avail multiple opportunities for personal hearing, leading to an ex-parte order. The respondents also asserted that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.