P.Muthu Selvan vs. The Dist. Manager

Facts

The petitioners, employed as Salesmen at TASMAC retail liquor sales depots in Tirunelveli District, were issued show cause notices following an inspection by a squad team. The allegations pertained to selling liquor bottles at prices exceeding Rs. 10/- above the marked price. Despite the petitioners submitting explanations, the respondent, the District Manager of TASMAC, Tirunelveli, passed an impugned order on March 5, 2020. This order imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 1800/- as GST. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to quash this order, arguing that a fresh inquiry should be conducted after they deposit a portion of the penalty. The respondent contended that the impugned order was passed after considering the petitioners' objections.

Held

The Court, in view of the submissions made by both parties, directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 7,000/- within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Upon such deposit, the respondent was directed to provide the petitioners with another opportunity to submit their explanation to the show cause notice. Subsequently, the respondent is to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations. The specific legal provisions under GST or other relevant acts that were the basis for the penalty were not explicitly discussed or decided upon by the Court in this order, as the matter was disposed of by granting a further opportunity to the petitioners.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 05.03.2020, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1800/- as GST on the petitioners, is sustainable in law, considering the procedural fairness and the grounds raised by the petitioners? The petitioners argued that a fresh inquiry should be conducted and that they are willing to deposit a portion of the penalty. They sought to quash the impugned order. The respondent contended that the impugned order was passed after considering the objections submitted by the petitioners, implying that due process was followed.