M/S. S V S Engineers vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has an appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that all grounds raised in the writ petition could be raised in the appeal. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal if filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, without reference to the period of limitation, and to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within three months thereafter. No order as to costs was made. The issue of violation of principles of natural justice was not decided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. SVS Engineers, represented by its Proprietor, Sankar, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an order in original (Order No. 126/2022-ST dated 20.12.2022) and consequential proceedings (DIN No 20240659XN030042457 dated 11.06.2024) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Thanjavur Division. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not afforded sufficient opportunity to present their case. The respondent revenue authority argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondent are liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without providing sufficient opportunity, thus violating the principles of natural justice, making the orders liable to be set aside. Respondent's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner possesses an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and therefore, the writ petition filed directly before this Court is not maintainable.