Allowed

M/S.Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sgst Department

Kerala HC26 Jul 2018WP(C)/23880/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an impugned order by the Assistant Commissioner was viciously natural justice due to a notice directing an impossible appearance date. The court set aside the order, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, and fixed a new date for the petitioner's appearance.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2018 and remand the matter for fresh adjudication with a fixed date of appearance.

M/S.Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 23880 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

M/S.JOHNSON CONTROLS-HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING INDIA LTD., RAMBAL YUTEEKA BUILDING, ABOVE ICICI BANK, THRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI.K.S.MURUGAN.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SGST DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Msd.

¶14

30.07.2018

¶15

WP(C).No. 23880 of 2018 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 22.5.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK RECORD SHOWING THE DELIVERY ON 4.6.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF C FORMS A RECONCILIATION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF DECLARATION. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2018.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

30.07.2018

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶26

W.P.(C). No. 23880 of 2018 (H)

¶27

======================================================= Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

In the assessment proceedings, the petitioner had a notice served on 05.07.2017 and later on 16.09.2017. The

¶30

department alleges that the petitioner's representatives appeared in response to neither notice. So it sent a 3^rd notice, dated 22.05.2018. Later it passed Ext.P6 order holding that the petitioner did not choose to respond to the notice, leave alone defending its cause. Assailing Ext.P6, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶31

The petitioner's counsel submits that though the 3^rd notice was apparently dated 22.05.2018, it was seen posted only on 01.06.2018. And the petitioner received it only on 04.06.2018. But the notice directs the petitioner to appear on 28.05.2018—an impossibility.

¶32

-2-

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 23880 of 2018 (H)

¶34

In response, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner did not choose to respond to two previous notices. But she cannot deny the fact that the Ext.P2 last notice was served only on 04.06.2018, the date for the petitioner's appearance was 28.05.2018, however.

¶35

So I hold that Ext.P6 falls foul of the principles of the natural justice. I, therefore, set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

¶36

Nevertheless, the allegation remains that earlier none appeared though the department notified the petitioner on two occasions. I reckon it serves the interest of justice if this Court fixes a mutually convenient date and asks the party to appear before the adjudicating authority.

¶37

So the petitioner's representative will appear before the adjudicating authority on 10.08.2018 (the date the petitioner prefers); then the respondent may

¶38

-3-

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 23880 of 2018 (H)

¶40

proceed further with the matter.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶44

das 26.07.2018

M/S.Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sgst Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sgst Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhara Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Anil Kumar v Vs the Auhorized Officer

Chellamma Vs the Branch Manager, SBI

Sajeesh K. Vs State of Kerala

Sihab P Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Shaheerudeen.S Vs the Authorized Officer