M/S.Hi Tech Horticulture vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Hi Tech Horticulture, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated March 21, 2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (GST), Dindigul. The notice alleged that the firm obtained its GST registration on September 25, 2019, through fraud, misstatement, and suppression of facts, and proposed cancellation of the registration. The notice directed the petitioner to appear before an unspecified official on April 3, 2023, and also suspended the GST registration. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice lacked crucial details regarding the designated officer. The High Court, on a previous hearing, directed the respondents to provide the details of the officer. The respondents subsequently informed the Court that the concerned officer is the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise, Theni Range (the second respondent).
Held
The Court held that the show cause notice dated March 21, 2023, was deficient in its particulars as it did not specify the designation or name of the officer before whom the petitioner was to appear. This omission was found to be contrary to the principles of natural justice, as it prevented the petitioner from effectively responding to the notice. However, instead of quashing the notice outright, the Court acknowledged the subsequent clarification provided by the revenue. The Court directed that the impugned notice dated March 21, 2023, would be treated as a valid show cause notice, and the petitioner was directed to answer it and appear before the second respondent, the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise, Theni Range, on June 28, 2023. The Court made no order as to costs. The ratio decidendi is that while a deficient show cause notice can be cured by subsequent clarification, the petitioner must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the clarified details.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated March 21, 2023, issued by the first respondent is legally sustainable, considering it fails to specify the designation or name of the officer before whom the petitioner is required to appear, thereby violating principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the petitioner's right to be heard? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was illegal and unsustainable as it did not provide the name or designation of the authority to whom they were to appear, rendering it impossible to comply with the notice and violating the principles of natural justice. They sought to quash the notice on this ground. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, initially did not explicitly state their argument regarding the deficiency in the show cause notice. However, upon the Court's direction, they identified the concerned officer as the second respondent, the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise, Theni Range, and filed a counter. They did not contest the petitioner's claim that the notice lacked specific details initially.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The above writ petition is filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned show cause notice in Ref.No.ZA3303231014943 dated 21.03.2023 of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal. 2.It is the case of the petitioner, which is a partnership firm, that they are carrying on business in rendering horticultural consultancy, landscape planning and other related jobs. They have the place of business at Dindigul, Hyderabad 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and Vishakapatnam and now they have started business at Theni and Secunderabad also. The petitioner firm was not registered initially, but however considering their expanding business, the petitioner had registered their firm. The petitioner had also obtained the GST registration certificate from the first respondent on 25.09.2019. 3.Meanwhile, disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 with regard to the partnership firm and he was removed from the firm on 01.04.2019. Thereafter, he received a communication from the Commissioner of EPFO, Vishakapatnam. It appears that the respondents 3 and 4 had created a forged deed of reconstitution partnership firm dated 01.04.2016. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a suit O.S.No.457 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul to declare that his removal through the deed of reconstitution of partnership dated 01.04.2019 was null and void and for an injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his right to act as partner as per the original partnership deed dated 25.05.1995. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
While so, the petitioner had received an e-mail communication on 21.03.2023 from the Commercial Tax Department together with a show cause notice calling for an explanation as to why the registration of the GST may not be cancelled since the same has been obtained by fraud, misstatement and suppression of facts. The show cause notice directed the petitioner to appear “before the undersigned” on 03.04.2023. However, the details of the official are not provided in the said show cause notice and the first respondent had also suspended the registration under GST with effect from the said date. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition. 5.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the records. 6.The show cause notice, which is the impugned order before this Court, does not reflect the designation or name of the officer, before whom the petitioner had to appear. Therefore, when the matter had came up for admission on 08.06.2023, this Court had directed the learned counsel appearing for the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondents 1 and 2 to give the details of the official before whom the petitioner has to appear. 7.When the matter had come up today, the learned counsel has filed his counter and informed this Court that the officer concerned is the second respondent, the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise, Theni Range. 8.In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall answer the show cause notice dated 21.03.2023 and appear before the second respondent on 28.06.2023. The impugned notice shall be treated as the show cause notice itself. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Speaking : Yes / No 19.06.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm
Note : issue order copy on 26.06.2023 after carryout necessary amendment. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis P.T.ASHA, J. mm
2023 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.