Manivel Murugen Leelavathy vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated January 5, 2022, passed by the Respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent for fresh consideration. The primary ground for this decision was the admitted fact that notice had not been served and intimations had not been given to the petitioner, which constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that an order passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard is unsustainable. The Respondent was directed to issue a fresh notice and pass orders in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Manivel Murugan Leelavathy, filed a writ petition challenging an Order in Original No. MAD-ST-000-ASC-07-2022 dated January 5, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice and personal intimations were not served, rendering the ex-parte order vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also asserted that they did not undertake civil work contract services or construction activities for the Public Works Department, and if proper notice had been given, they could have provided documents to demonstrate they were mechanical sub-contractors, whose contracts might be exempted if the main contractor discharged their liability. The respondent's counsel had no records to show due service of notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order in Original dated January 5, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai, is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of show cause notice and intimations to the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and passed without application of mind and in violation of judicial discipline. The primary contention was that the show cause notice and personal intimations were not served, leading to an ex-parte order that vitiates the proceedings. The petitioner further claimed that the premise of the order, that they undertook work contract for the Public Works Department, was factually incorrect and unsupported by evidence. They stated that if they had been notified, they could have presented documents to establish their status as mechanical sub-contractors, potentially qualifying for an exemption. Respondent's arguments: The respondent's counsel could not produce records to demonstrate the due service of notice.