![]()
S. Anand Sathya vs. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, and others
Application
No. W.P. No.:
W.P.(MD) No.11646 of 2024
Date of
Order: June 5,
2024
Name of
Court: Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court
Summary of
the Case:
The case
involves S. Anand Sathya, the petitioner, who is the legal heir of the deceased
assessee, Late A. Sathianesan. The petitioner challenges an order passed by the
Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Marthandam Range, regarding a tax
demand for the period from July 2017 to March 2018. The order was issued after
the death of the petitioner's father and the petitioner claims he was unaware
of it.
Facts of
the Case:
· The petitioner's father, a
registered dealer under the GST enactment, passed away on February 8, 2023.
· The petitioner applied for the
cancellation of his father's GST registration on May 8, 2023, which was
approved and the registration was canceled effective May 1, 2023.
· The impugned order was issued
on May 4, 2023, but the petitioner was unaware of it as it was hosted on the
GST common portal.
· The petitioner failed to
attend several personal hearings due to illness.
Submission
by the Petitioner:
The
petitioner argued that:
· He was unaware of the impugned
order as it was only hosted on the GST common portal.
· The order was passed after his
father's death and he should have been given an opportunity to defend the tax
liability.
· He missed the hearings due to
illness.
Submission
by the Respondent:
The
respondent argued that:
· The petitioner was aware of
the proceedings and had obtained a Chartered Accountant's certificate on
February 27, 2024, to explain the mismatch in the Input Tax Credit availed by
his father.
· The petitioner failed to
appear for personal hearings despite being notified.
Judgment:
The court,
considering the submissions from both sides, quashed the impugned order and
remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh orders on merits and in
accordance with the law. The court directed:
· The respondent to serve a copy
of the notice that preceded the impugned order to the petitioner within 30
days.
· The petitioner to reply to the
show cause notice within two months from the date of receipt.
· The respondent to pass fresh
orders on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months,
after hearing the petitioner.
Conclusion:
The writ
petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The case was remitted
back to the respondent to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to
defend the tax liability as the legal representative of his deceased father.
Disclaimer: All the
Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the
Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the
authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the
basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
