M/S.Angalesh Marketing vs. The Superintendent Of GST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Angalesh Marketing, represented by its Proprietor S.Muthumari, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No.11/2024 GST dated 15.03.2024, passed by the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Madurai. This order confirmed demands proposed in ASMT 10 dated 24.03.2023, DRC 01A dated 17.10.2023, and DRC 01 dated 04.12.2023. The petitioner contended that they had indeed replied to the show cause notice (DRC 01 dated 04.12.2023) on 27.02.2024, which was duly acknowledged. However, the impugned order erroneously stated that no response was received. The court noted that the petitioner's reply, received on 27.02.2024, was not considered by the respondent before passing the order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original No.11/2024 GST dated 15.03.2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 04.12.2023 on 27.02.2024, and this reply was not considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without considering a timely and acknowledged reply from the assessee violates principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be set aside. The Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh copy of their reply within 15 days, and the respondent was directed to consider this reply while passing fresh orders on merits within 30 days from the receipt of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No.11/2024 GST dated 15.03.2024 is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and contravention of the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because their reply to the show cause notice dated 04.12.2023, which was submitted on 27.02.2024 and duly acknowledged, was not considered by the respondent. This failure to consider a timely response rendered the order illegal. Respondent's arguments: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, their position was implicit in the issuance of the impugned order which stated that the petitioner had not responded to the show cause notice.