GST Vidhi | GST Case Law

Case Title: Tvl. Oswal Trade Links vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer II & Others

Case Number: W.P.No.25147 of 2024

Date of Order: 3rd September 2024

Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

Summary of the Case: The writ petition was filed by Tvl. Oswal Trade Links, represented by its proprietor, challenging an order passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner alleged that the order was passed without affording an opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court agreed and set aside the order, remanding the case back to the respondent for reconsideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax.

Facts of the Case:

·        Petitioner: Tvl. Oswal Trade Links, represented by its proprietor Darsha Lodha, challenged the assessment order under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017.

·        Show Cause Notice: The first respondent issued a show cause notice on 26th December 2023, followed by reminder notices on 22nd March, 1st April, and 15th April 2024.

·        Petitioner's Response: The petitioner replied, stating that several supporting documents were with the third respondent and could not be submitted in time.

·        Impugned Order: Despite this, the first respondent passed the order on 20th April 2024, demanding tax along with interest and penalty, without giving the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Submission by Petitioner:

·        The petitioner's counsel, Mr. S. Saravanakumaran, argued that the order was passed without affording a personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.

·        The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 10% of the disputed tax if given another opportunity to present their case and file the necessary documents.

Submission by Respondents:

·        Represented by Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), Mr. C. Harsha Raj, the respondents stated that the petitioner failed to submit the necessary documents within the time limit despite multiple notices. Hence, the order was passed.

Findings of the Court:

·        The court noted that no opportunity for a personal hearing had been given to the petitioner, which was a violation of natural justice.

·        The court deemed it necessary to provide the petitioner an opportunity to establish their case on merits and set aside the impugned order.

Judgment:

·        The court set aside the impugned order dated 20th April 2024 and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

·        The petitioner was directed to pay 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the court's order.

·        Upon payment, the petitioner was instructed to submit their reply and supporting documents within two weeks.

·        The respondent was then directed to issue a 14-day notice for a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders after considering the petitioner's submission.

Conclusion: The High Court of Madras found that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice and allowed the petitioner an opportunity to present their case after paying 10% of the disputed tax. The case was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

 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.