![]()
Case Details: Witzenmann India Private Limited vs. The Assistant
Commissioner (State Taxes)
Case No.: W.P.No.21865
of 2024
Date of Order: 13th
August 2024
Court: Madras
High Court
Presiding Judge: Honourable
Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Summary of the Case: Witzenmann
India Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Pammal Assessment Circle, which was
claimed to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court
found that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their
case and quashed the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the
respondent with directions for a fresh hearing.
Facts of the Case:
·
Witzenmann India Private Limited,
represented by its Managing Director, challenged the order bearing No.GSTIN
33AAACH7739L1ZB/2018-19, dated 29th April 2024, issued by the Assistant
Commissioner (State Taxes), Pammal Assessment Circle, Chennai.
·
The petitioner argued that the order was
passed without granting them a personal hearing, as required under Section
75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.
·
The petitioner contended that the order
was cryptic, non-speaking, and that the explanations and documents provided by
them were not considered.
Submission by Petitioner:
·
The petitioner's counsel argued that the
order was issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice
because no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided.
·
The petitioner also asserted that they had
submitted all necessary documents to prove that they were not liable to pay the
tax demanded by the respondent, but these documents were disregarded.
Submission by Respondent:
· The
respondent's counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed after a
careful examination of the petitioner's reply. However, they conceded that they
would comply with any order passed by the court.
Findings and Judgement of
the Court:
·
The court noted that the impugned order
was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to present their
case, which is a clear violation of natural justice.
·
The court held that no order could be
passed without providing sufficient opportunities to the petitioner and set
aside the impugned order.
·
The court remanded the matter back to the
respondent for reconsideration, directing that the petitioner should deposit
10% of the disputed tax within four weeks and file a fresh reply within two
weeks.
·
The respondent was instructed to fix a
date for a personal hearing, giving the petitioner 14 days' notice, and then
pass a new order on merits.
Conclusion: The
writ petition was disposed of with the impugned order being quashed. The case
was remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) for a fresh
hearing, ensuring that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to present
their case.
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
