M/S Supreme Construction And Company vs. Deputy Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the lapse in receiving the notices for personal hearing appeared to be on the part of the petitioner/assessee, not the Revenue. The petitioner ought to have communicated an alternative address or contact number to the Revenue to ensure timely receipt of notices regarding changed dates of personal hearing. Since the petitioner failed to take these precautionary measures, the Revenue could not be faulted for the situation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of preferring an appeal, which they can avail. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspects and the availability of alternative remedies.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Supreme Construction and Company, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST. This was the second round of litigation, following a previous writ petition (W.P.No.7543/2022) disposed of on August 3, 2022. In the earlier petition, the Court had expressed hope that the adjudicating authority would consider all contentions raised by the petitioner in their reply to a show cause notice. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another reply and received notices for personal hearing. The petitioner alleged that the notices for personal hearing were dispatched and delivered in such a manner that they did not receive adequate opportunity to present their case before the Revenue passed an assessment order on December 29, 2022. The Court noted that the petitioner had not communicated any alternative address or contact number to the Revenue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Revenue before passing the assessment order dated 29.12.2022, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notices for personal hearing were not served in a timely manner, making it impossible for them to appear and present their case. Specifically, the notice dated 9.11.2022 was dispatched on 16.11.2022, after the hearing date of 18.11.2022. The subsequent notice dated 14.11.2022, which extended the hearing to 21.11.2022, was allegedly delivered when the petitioner was out of station for medical treatment in Nagpur. This denial of opportunity led to the assessment order being passed without considering the petitioner's full submissions. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not present any arguments in this proceeding. However, the Court's observation implies that the Revenue acted within its procedural bounds, and the lapse was on the part of the petitioner for not providing updated contact information.