Yogitha Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise
Facts
The petitioner, Yogitha Constructions, represented by its partner Shri P. Murugan, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent to pass a fresh order after considering their representations dated 05.03.2023 and 02.05.2023, along with the documents filed. The primary contention of the petitioner was that the impugned order failed to consider the defenses raised by them. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 had, in fact, considered the defenses raised by the petitioner. The Court further observed that the correctness or otherwise of the findings in the order should be tested in an appeal, as there is an alternative remedy available. Therefore, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition directly. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy of appeal exists and the Court found that the defenses were considered by the respondent. No costs were imposed. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed for failure to consider the defenses raised by the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice and acting without jurisdiction? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order in question did not consider the defenses they had raised and reiterated this point before the Court, drawing attention to specific portions of their defense that were allegedly overlooked. They sought a fresh consideration of their representations and documents. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the Court's observation implies that the respondent contended that the defenses were considered.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.06.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and W.M.P(MD) No.12970 of 2020 Yogitha Constructions, Represented by its Partner Shri P.Murugan No.1115, Jeeva Road, Kattabomman Nagar, Sellur, Madurai-625002. ... Petitioner Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Madurai II Division, Central Revenue Buildings, No.5, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai-625002. ... Respondent Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records passed by the respondent in Order in Original No.MAD-ST- ASC-030-2023, dated 14.06.2023 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without juri iction and against the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to pass an order afresh after considering _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the representation dated 05.03.2023 and 02.05.2023 along with the documents filed.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilipkumar Standing Counsel
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.