M/S Rimi Sales Agency vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the order passed by the Inspector of Sales Tax suffered from a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The authority issued a show-cause notice on 06.11.2018, requiring the petitioner to appear on 23.11.2018, but then passed the final order confirming the demand on the very same date, 06.11.2018, without allowing the petitioner to appear, file a reply, or oppose the demands. This action was deemed wholly impermissible. Consequently, the orders dated 06.11.2018 were quashed. The Court directed that it would be open for the competent authority to pass a fresh order after allowing the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner was directed to file their reply by 31st May, 2021, upon which the concerned authority shall pass an order in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Rimi Sales Agency, a dealer registered under the Tripura GST Act, challenged a demand order dated 06.11.2018 passed by the Inspector of Sales Tax. The petitioner had placed orders for goods from a Kolkata-based company. The vehicle transporting these goods was intercepted at Churaibari check post, and discrepancies were found in the E-way bill. On 06.11.2018, the Inspector of Taxes issued a notice to the petitioner proposing a tentative demand of GST and IGST with penalty, calling for appearance on 23.11.2018. However, on the same date, 06.11.2018, the Inspector passed separate orders raising a demand of Rs.32,280/- and confirming the demand of GST with penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. These orders are the subject of the present petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand order dated 06.11.2018, passed by the Inspector of Sales Tax, is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a reasonable opportunity of being heard? The petitioner argued that the authority passed the final order confirming the demand on the same date as the show-cause notice and before the stipulated date for appearance, thus denying them a chance to present their case. The respondent (Union of India) did not record any specific arguments against this contention in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No.1185 of 2018
M/S Rimi Sales Agency
......... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India ......Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biplabendu Roy, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Biswanath Majumder, Asst. S.G.,
Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. A. Nandi, Advocate.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 26/04/2021
(Akil kureshi, CJ)
Petitioner has challenged a demand order dated 06.11.2018 passed by the Inspector of Sales Tax. It is not necessary to record facts in detail since we are inclined to set aside this order on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of presenting his case before the said authority.
Bare necessary facts are that the petitioner is a dealer registered under the Tripura GST Act. The petitioner has placed orders to the Kolkata based com
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Tripura High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.