Rajapalayam Cement And Chemicals LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Rajapalayam Cement & Chemicals Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order in Form GST DRC-07 dated March 3, 2023, for the assessment year 2019-20, issued by the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rajapalayam. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings because the notice was served only through an online portal. The respondent's counsel submitted that in similar cases, a direction to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount has been granted. The petitioner agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within thirty days of receiving the order.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned ex parte order dated March 3, 2023. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon compliance, the attachment effected on the petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) account shall be raised forthwith. The petitioner is then required to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days thereafter. The respondent shall provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a final order within two months. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount and file their reply within the specified periods, the benefit of this order would be automatically recalled, and the impugned order could be enforced. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order dated March 3, 2023, issued by the respondent is without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, considering the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of proper notice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the ex parte order is liable to be quashed as it was passed without proper notice, as service was effected only through the online portal, leading to their lack of awareness. This, they claimed, constitutes a violation of statutory provisions. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not explicitly argue on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding notice. However, their counsel submitted that in similar matters, the Court has granted relief by directing the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount.