![]()
Case Details: M/s. Prestige Marketing vs. The State Tax Officer
& Anr.
Case Number: W.P.
No. 23943 of 2024 & W.M.P. Nos. 29196 to 29198 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. Prestige Marketing, challenged
the orders dated 30th December 2023 issued by the State Tax Officer under
Section 73 of the CGST and TNGST Acts for the assessment year 2017-18. The
orders were contested on the grounds that they were passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice and without providing the petitioner an
opportunity to be heard.
Facts of the Case:
· The
petitioner, a small business entity, argued that all notices and communications
related to the case were uploaded under the "Additional Notices
Column" on the GST portal.
· Due
to the lack of awareness of these uploaded notices and a failure by their
accountant to check the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond within the
stipulated time.
· Subsequently,
the respondent passed the impugned orders without offering a personal hearing
to the petitioner, which the petitioner claimed violated the principles of
natural justice.
Submission by Petitioner:
· The
petitioner contended that the impugned orders were issued without any
opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural
justice.
· The
petitioner requested the court to quash the orders and stated their willingness
to pay 10% of the demand if given the opportunity to file their objections
along with supporting documents.
Submission by Respondent:
· The
respondent admitted that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity
for a personal hearing before passing the orders.
· The
respondent also indicated that the petitioner could approach the Appellate
Authority for relief, but did not object to the court's potential remand of the
matter for fresh consideration.
Findings and Judgement of the Court:
· The
court found that the orders were passed without providing the petitioner with a
personal hearing, which is a fundamental violation of the principles of natural
justice.
· The
court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the
respondent for fresh consideration, conditional upon the petitioner paying 10%
of the demand within four weeks.
· The
court also ordered the respondent to lift the attachment on the petitioner's
bank accounts immediately upon proof of payment of the 10% demand.
· The
respondent was directed to issue a clear 14-day notice for a personal hearing
after the petitioner files their reply/objection within two weeks.
Conclusion: The
writ petition was disposed of with directions for a fresh hearing, ensuring
that the petitioner is given a fair chance to present their case, and the bank
account attachment was lifted upon compliance with the payment condition.
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
