Vembuambal vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax (GST Appeals)

Held

The Court acknowledged that the impugned order was passed without proper notice being served on the petitioner, as indicated by the fact that the address was not traceable and the petitioner's phone number was out of use. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that she was ready to provide an explanation for the allegations. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to submit her explanation within two weeks from the date of the order. The second respondent was then directed to pass appropriate orders after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. The Court treated the impugned order as a notice for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to present her case. The Court did not decide on the merits of the allegations but remanded the matter for proper adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, Vembuambal, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 31.03.2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Madurai Rural (East) Assessment Circle (the second respondent). The petitioner contended that no notice was served to her prior to the impugned order, as the address was not traceable and her provided phone number was out of use. The tax period in dispute is 2017-18. The petitioner expressed her readiness to provide an explanation for the allegations made against her in the order. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.03.2023, passed by the second respondent, is liable to be quashed for non-service of notice to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as per the provisions of the GST Act and Rules? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without proper notice being served, as her address was untraceable and her contact number was defunct. This lack of notice, she contended, violated the principles of natural justice. She expressed willingness to submit an explanation regarding the allegations. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's direction implies that the respondents are expected to consider the petitioner's explanation.