M/S Sathavahana Associates vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sathavahana Associates, challenged an Order-in-Original dated March 2, 2022, passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (1st Respondent). This order confirmed a demand of Rs. 3,00,33,961.00 and imposed an equivalent penalty under the Finance Act, 1994, for the period 2015-16 to June 2017. The petitioner contended that they did not receive a notice for personal hearing, thus being denied an opportunity to defend their case. The Revenue argued that the notice was sent to the address registered by the petitioner. The impugned order noted that the intimation for personal hearing was returned undelivered by postal authorities.
Held
The Court held that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter. The impugned Order-in-Original dated March 2, 2022, was set aside. However, this order was to be treated as a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit a reply within three weeks from the date of the order. Upon receipt of the reply within the stipulated period, the 1st Respondent was to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after granting the petitioner a due opportunity of hearing, including personal hearing. If no reply was filed by the petitioner, the 1st Respondent was at liberty to pass such order as deemed fit. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated March 2, 2022, passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing, under the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were not served with a notice for personal hearing, which prevented them from effectively defending their case. This lack of opportunity, they asserted, rendered the order illegal and violative of natural justice principles. Revenue's contention: The respondents contended that a notice of hearing was dispatched to the address provided by the petitioner in their GST registration. The judgment notes that the intimation for personal hearing was returned undelivered by postal authorities.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 78
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
/l THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHTIYAN THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.26986 of 2022 ORDER: e( r ltLe llon'ble the ChieJ Justicc Ujjal Blallan) Heard Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner arrd Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, Iearned Standing Counsel for Goods and Services Tax (GST), for the respondents.
Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order- in-originai dated 02.03.2022 passed by respondent No.1 confirming demand of Rs.3,00,33,961.00 under Section 73(21 ol the Finance Act, 1994 and imposing penalt), of equivalent amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Leamed Scnior Counsel for the petitioner submtts that no notice ol personal hearing was received by the AN.D
ri('./ a( ,5,\7 tY. P. No.16986 of 2D2 petitioner. Therefore, petitioner could not eifectivel)' defend its case.
Learned Standing Counsel however submits from the documents placed on record that notice of hearing u'as sent to the address mentioned by the petitioner in its GST registration.
From a perusal of the order dated 02.03.2022, more particularly paragraph 5 thereof, we find that intimation of personal hearing sent to the service provider i.e., the petitioner, was returned undelivered b-v tl-re postal authorities. Following the same, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order on the basis of available m:rterials.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the partie:s and on due consideration, we are of the vier.r, that it u,ould be in the interest of justice if the matter is remanded anci petitioner is afforded an opportunitv of henringl before confirmation of demald and imposition of pcnaltr,. 2
T|CJ & SNJ tt/. P. No.26986 of 2022
In view of the above, we pass the follou,ing order(s):- (i) Impugned order-in-original dated 02.03.2022 is herebv set aside. (ii) Though we have set aside the order-in-original dated 02.03.2022, the same may be treated as the notice to show cause by the petitioner. (iii) Petitioner shalt submit reply within a period of three weeks from todaY. (iv) If the petitioner submits reply within the aforesaid period of three weeks' respondent No.l shall pass necessary order in accordance with law after granting due opportunity of hearing including personal hearing to the petitioner. (v) However, if no reply is filed by the petitioner' it would be open to respondent No'1 to pass such order as maY be deemed fit and Proper' Writ petition is accordingly disposed of' 8 /I
HCJ & SN./ ll.P.No.26986 oJ 2022
Miscellaleous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Arcade, Cooperative Bank Colony, Bandlaguda Road, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500 068, Telangana. One CC to M/S.D.VENKATA PADMAJA, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI.B.NARASIMHA SARIVIA, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies One spare copy (' + r) To 1. 2. 3. .I.NAGALAKSHMt DEPUry REGISTRAR //// secrrcir'rbrrtcEn The Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, posneit Bhavan, Titaf noad, iam Xotei l1yOera'Uad - 500 001 , Telanggna' iiu' su'p"ii"t""oent of ceniiat'ii,, vitiutir''lipuram Range' Nagole G-ST oi"i.i"inr"s, nloov csf Commissionerate. H. No" 23908, Sai Balaii nii"i",'c""p"rative bank Colony, Bandlaguda Road, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500 068, Telangana. The Deputy / Aisistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Nagole GST Division,Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, H. No.. 23908, Sai Balaji 4 5 o 7 .A S P I
HIGH COURT DATED:2gt}Gl2022 ORDER WP.No.26986 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. {/ [2 sEP 2m 8
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.