S.Suthesan vs. The District Manager
Facts
The petitioner, S. Suthesan, a salesman at a TASMAC outlet, was issued an order by the District Manager, TASMAC, Madurai South, imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/- along with GST of Rs. 1,800/-. This penalty was for allegedly selling Kingfisher Beer with an excess margin of Rs. 10/- per bottle. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition, arguing that the order was passed without any inspection or inquiry and, crucially, without issuing any notice to him, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The respondent, TASMAC, contended that a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner and that he had received it, refuting the claim of no notice.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 was passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. The records indicated that a show cause notice was issued on 10.02.2020, and the impugned order was passed on 13.02.2020. This short timeframe clearly demonstrated that the petitioner was not given adequate time to respond to the notice and present his defense. Consequently, the Court found that the order was passed without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity to be heard, which is a fundamental breach of natural justice. The Court reasoned that passing an order without a proper reply or defense from the affected party renders the order liable for interference. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the concerned authority for passing appropriate orders in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioner is given due opportunity to present his case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.02.2020, imposing a fine and GST, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by failing to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case? The petitioner argued that the order was passed without any inspection or inquiry and, most importantly, without issuing any notice, making it illegal and contrary to natural justice. The respondent contended that a show cause notice was indeed issued and received by the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order was valid and did not warrant interference. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the petitioner was afforded a fair hearing before the penalty was imposed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R Challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.331/2020/A dated 13.02.2020 and to quash the same, the Writ Petition has been filed.
The case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as salesman in Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) situated at Athipatti, under the respondent herein, he was issued with an impugned order stating that he has sold Kingfisher Beer 650 ml bottle with a margin of Rs.10/-, for which he was imposed a fi
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.