M/S.M.V.S.Fabricators vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 was set aside. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the order was passed prematurely, before the expiry of the time granted for filing objections, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Court accepted the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner should be allowed to file its objections. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to submit its objections/reply within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The respondent was directed to consider these objections and pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court also stipulated that if no objection/reply was filed within the two-week period, the impugned order would stand revived. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M.V.S. Fabricators, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 20.02.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Pudukkottai-I, under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily and illegally, violating principles of natural justice. Specifically, the respondent authority had issued a notice (DRC-01) on 19.02.2024, calling for objections by 04.03.2024. However, the impugned order was passed on 20.02.2024, which was before the expiry of the stipulated time for filing objections. The tax period in question was FY 2017-18. The amount in dispute was not explicitly stated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.02.2024, passed by the respondent authority, is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the opportunity to file objections? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 74 of the GST Act and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed prematurely, before the expiry of the time granted for filing objections, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They sought quashing of the order and a direction to redo the adjudication after granting a personal hearing. Respondent's arguments: The learned Government Advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner could file its objection/reply, and the same would be considered, with orders being passed afresh in accordance with law.