M/S Capital Enterprises and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010179812021

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:6113

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6184/2021

¶6

M/S CAPITAL ENTERPRISES AND ANR

¶7

A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT C SECTOR, NAHARLAGUN, DIST. PAPUM PARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, PARNIL PALACE, ZOO ROAD, TINIALI, GUWAHATI 781024, ASSAM AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTED BY MRS. SANBOM TAIPODIA,THE PROPRIETOR OF THE PETITIONER FIRM AND THE PETITIONER NO. 2 HEREIN

¶8

2: MRS. SENBOM TAIPODIA

¶9

D/O LATE MAHEN TAIPODIA R/O CAPITAL HOME COMPLEX OPP LEGAL METROLOGY OFFICE C SECTOR NAHARLAGUN DIST. PAPUMPARE ARUNACHAL PRADESH

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPTT. OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI

¶12

2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

¶13

CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE GUWAHATI CENTRAL GST HQRS GUWAHATI GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI 781001

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT (ADJ)

¶16

GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE GUWAHATI GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI 78100

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR RAJEEV AGARWAL, MS. N UPADHYAY,MR. P DAS

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST,

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 16-05-2025

¶22

Heard Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, GST.

¶23

The petitioner was issued a Demand-cum-Show cause notice dated 21.10.2019 for non-payment of service tax amounting to Rs.2,32,70,459/-. Subsequently, an order in original dated 16.02.2021 was passed. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed, though a remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner.

¶24

An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the GST and from the aforesaid affidavit, more particularly from paragraph 10, it transpires that the first notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner on 11.01.2021 asking the petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority on 27.01.2021 at 13:15 hours. On the basis of the said notice, the petitioner appeared

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

before the authority. However, an intimation was further issued for personal hearing by another notice dated 02.02.2021.

¶27

The respondent authorities construed that the said notice dated 02.02.2021 was duly received by the petitioner, as the said notice was sent to the same address, where earlier notice dated 11.01.2021 was duly delivered.

¶28

In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court under its order dated 07.08.2023 made a specific query upon the learned Standing Counsel for Central GST and Central Excise, as to how notice dated 02.02.2021 was sent and as to whether there is any document to show that the notice was sent by way of registered post and also as to whether there is any postal delivery report in that regard.

¶29

Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, in his usual fairness after going through the record submits that there is no proof of delivery of the subsequent notice dated 02.02.2021 and therefore he would submit that as the petitioner has already filed his show-cause notice, he may be allowed a personal hearing.

¶30

The principle of natural justice mandates that a reasonable opportunity must be given to a person before taking any action against him.

¶31

This Court is also of the opinion that principal of natural justice would mean an effective hearing and non-service of such notice has deprived the petitioner for the personal hearing. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of Mr. Keyal,

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

as well as the taking note of the fact that there is no proof of delivery of the subsequent notice and to meet the ends of justice, it is provided that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent no. 2 on or before 27.06.2025.

¶34

On such appearance, the respondent no. 2 may give a personal hearing on that date or may fix a date as per his convenience for hearing.

¶35

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

M/S Capital Enterprises and Anr. v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Capital Enterprises and Anr. v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afruj Zaman and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Afruj Zaman and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Matior Rahman and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Prafulla Chandra Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Diganta Duarah Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Sanjila Brahma Vs the State of Assam and Ors.