![]()
Case Details: M/s. Road Linkers Express Service vs. The Assistant
Commissioner (ST) & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.
No. 23503 of 2024 & W.M.P. Nos. 25702, 25703 & 25706 of 2024
Court: High
Court of Judicature at Madras
Date of Order: 20th
August 2024
Presiding Judge: Honourable
Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Summary of the Case: The
petitioner, M/s. Road Linkers Express Service, challenged the ex-parte order
dated 27th December 2023 passed by the respondent under the CGST and SGST Acts
for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the order was
passed without providing a personal hearing and beyond the limitation period.
Facts of the Case:
· The
petitioner received a demand notice from the respondent on 28th June 2023 for
the assessment year 2017-18.
· An
ex-parte order was subsequently passed by the respondent on 27th December 2023
without providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing.
· The
petitioner contended that the order was issued after the expiration of the
limitation period and that the respondent failed to offer a personal hearing
before issuing the order.
Submission by Petitioner:
· The
petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed beyond the limitation
period and without a personal hearing, violating the principles of natural
justice.
· The
petitioner requested the court to quash the order and lift the bank attachment
imposed based on the impugned order.
Submission by Respondent:
· The
respondent admitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity for a
personal hearing before the impugned order was passed.
· The
respondent requested the court to remit the matter for fresh consideration,
conditional upon the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed amount.
Findings and Judgement of the Court:
· The
court determined that the impugned order was passed without providing a
personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural
justice.
· The
court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the
respondent for fresh consideration. This was contingent upon the petitioner
paying 10% of the disputed amount within four weeks.
· The
court also ordered that the bank attachment be lifted immediately upon the
petitioner providing proof of payment of 10% of the demand amount.
Conclusion: The
writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondent to re-consider
the case after providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal
hearing. The bank attachment was lifted, contingent on the payment of 10% of
the disputed amount by the petitioner.
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
