Allowed

M/s.Shido Pharma v. The Assistant commissioner (St)

Madras HC3 Apr 2023WP/10371/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging orders of goods detention under the GST Act. The court found that the petitioner was heard only on an initial notice but not the revised notice issued subsequently. Ruling that principles of natural justice were violated, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for de novo proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned orders dated 24.03.2023 and permit the petitioner to appear for fresh hearing.

M/s.Shido Pharma Vs The Assistant commissioner (St) — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.10371, 10372 & 10373 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 03.04.2023

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P.Nos.10371, 10372 & 10373 of 2023 and WMP.Nos.10334, 10335 & 10336 of 2023

¶6

M/s Shido Pharma, represented by its Proprietor, No.108/A4 Nallur Road, Vijayanallur, Red Hills, Chennai 600 067.

¶7

... Petitioner in all W.P's

¶8

¶9

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Adjudication, Intelligence-1, Officer of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Intelligence – I,

¶10

Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

2.The Deputy State Tax Officer, Static Roving Squad, Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Intelligence – I,

¶12

Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

3.The State Tax Officer Adjudication, Intelligence – 1, Chennai.

¶14

... Respondents in all W.P.'s

¶15

Pg.No.1 of 6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.Nos.10371, 10372 & 10373 of 2023

¶18

PRAYER in W.P.No.10371 of 2023: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Order No.889/202223/ADJ, quash the order dated 24.03.2023 passed therein.

¶19

PRAYER in W.P.No.10372 of 2023: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Order No.892/202223/ADJ, quash the order dated 24.03.2023 passed therein.

¶20

PRAYER in W.P.No.10372 of 2023: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Order No.890/202223/ADJ, quash the order dated 24.03.2023 passed therein.

¶21

in all WP's For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Ramani, Standing Counsel for Mr.B.Raveendran For Respondents :Mrs.E.Ranganayaki Additional Government Pleader

¶22

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶23

Mrs. E.Ranganayaki, Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for

¶24

the respondents and is armed with necessary instructions. The officer is also present before this court to enable the disposal of this petition even at this juncture.

¶25

The petitioner challenges an order of Goods detention under Section 129 (3) of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017 (in short 'SGST Act'), read

¶26

with the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017/IGST Act,

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Pg.No.2 of 6

¶29

W.P.Nos.10371, 10372 & 10373 of 2023

¶30

2017/GST(Compensation to States) Act, 2017. The main ground is that the

¶31

petitioner was not offered any hearing prior to passing of the impugned order.

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel was requested to produce the records to ascertain this aspect of the matter and has produced a record of personal hearing on 24.03.2023, where the presence of the petitioner is noted. However, that personal hearing is with reference to a notice issued by the respondent on 18.03.2023, that had proposed an addition under the provisions of the Intergrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(in short 'IGST Act').

¶33

The petitioner had filed a detailed reply on 24.03.2023 stating that the provisions of the IGST Act are inapplicable to the transaction in question. On the same date, the respondent has issued a revised notice, in Form GST MOV - 07 proceeding to apply the applicable provisions of the CGST/SGST Act.

¶34

However, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to respond to that notice and the petitioner was further never heard. What had transpired on 24.03.2023 was a hearing only in respect of notice dated 18.03.2023 and not subsequent notice dated 24.03.2023.

¶35

Thus, there is some merit in the allegation that the proceedings have been concluded contrary to the principles of natural justice. Impugned orders bearing Nos.889/2022-23/ADJ, 892/2022-23/ADJ and 890/2022-23/ADJ, all dated 24.03.2023, are thus set aside.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Pg.No.3 of 6

¶38

W.P.Nos.10371, 10372 & 10373 of 2023

¶39

The petitioner is permitted to appear before the 1^st respondent on

¶40

05.04.2023 at 10.30 a.m., without expecting any further notice in this regard along with a reply to notice dated 24.03.2023. After hearing the petitioner and considering the reply, if any, orders shall be passed de novo within a period of one week from 05.04.2023.

¶41

These Writ Petitions are allowed in the above terms. No costs.

¶42

Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶43

mpl

¶44

03.04.2023

¶45

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶46

¶47

1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Adjudication, Intelligence-1, Officer of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Intelligence – I,

¶48

Chennai – 600 006.

¶49

2.The Deputy State Tax Officer, Static Roving Squad, Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST), Intelligence – I,

¶50

Chennai – 600 006.

¶51

3.The State Tax Officer

¶52

Adjudication, Intelligence – 1,

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

Pg.No.4 of 6

¶55

W.P.Nos.10371, 10372 & 10373 of 2023

¶56

Chennai.

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pg.No.5 of 6

¶58

W.P.Nos.10371, 10372 & 10373 of 2023

¶59

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

¶60

mpl

¶61

W.P.Nos.10371, 10372 & 10373 of 2023 & WMP.Nos.10334, 10335 & 10336 of 2023

¶62

03.04.2023

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pg.No.6 of 6

M/s.Shido Pharma v. The Assistant commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Shido Pharma v. The Assistant commissioner (St)

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

M/s.Ramani Cars Private Limited Vs Union of India through Secretary

Mr.Abdul Rasheed Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Devendiran Vs The Secretary

St. Francis Anglo-Indian girls high school Vs the Secretary

Madras Race Club Vs Greater Chennai Corporation

Cheran Properties Limited Vs The Commissioner