Allowed

M/s.Lenovo India Private Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of

Madras HC1 Feb 2023WP/1863/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed an_order rejecting a GST refund claim of Rs. 8.52 crore due to a violation of natural justice. The court held that the respondent failed to provide a personal hearing despite the petitioner's request and the procedural timeline constraints.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration within twelve weeks with a personal hearing.

M/s.Lenovo India Private Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.1863 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.No.1863 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.1965 of 2023

¶8

M/s.Lenovo India Private Limited, (Represented by its Manager, Indirect Taxation, Shri.Govindaraya Pai) AWFIS Space Solutions, South Phase, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai - 600 035. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Guindy Division, Chennai South Commissionerate of Central Taxes, 8th Floor, MHU Complex, GST Bhavan, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035. ... Respondents

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to order dated 13.12.2022 bearing Reference number ZF3312220159393 passed by the respondent rejecting refund claim for Rs.8,52,78,067/- filed by the petitioner being Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST, in short) paid on supply of goods to SEZ Units and quash the same holding the order as non-est, unlawful and improper.

¶13

1/7

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.1863 of 2023

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Shankarraman For Respondents : Mr.M.Santhana Raman Senior Panel Counsel

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13.12.2022, rejecting their application seeking refund, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶19

The petitioner claims that a show cause notice was issues to them on 21.11.2022 at 18:17:33 hrs, calling upon the petitioner to submit their reply within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. However, in the notice dated 21.11.2022, the operative portion calls upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent on 28.11.2022 at 03.00 p.m. either through physical / virtual hearing. It also states that if the petitioner fails to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fails to appear for hearing on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided exparte on the basis of the available records and on merits.

¶20

2/7

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.1863 of 2023

¶23

Admittedly, the show cause notice dated 21.11.2022 issued at

¶24

18:17:33 hrs to the petitioner, calls upon the petitioner to submit a reply within a period of 15 days. But, however, in the very same show cause notice, the petitioner has been called upon to appear before the respondent on 28.11.2022 at 03:00 p.m. either through physical / virtual hearing. Having given time for the petitioner to submit a reply within a period of 15 days from 21.11.2022 at 18:17:33 hrs, the respondent ought not to have called the petitioner for physical / virtual hearing on 28.11.2022 at 03:00 p.m. within a period of seven days from 21.11.2022 being the date of the show cause notice.

¶25

The petitioner has also submitted a reply thereafter on 02.12.2022 to the show cause notice dated 21.11.2022 sent by the respondent at 18:17:33 hrs. In the reply dated 02.12.2022, the petitioner has also sought for a personal hearing. However, as seen from the impugned assessment order, no personal hearing has been afforded to the petitioner and the objection raised by the petitioner in its reply dated 02.12.2022 has also not been considered.

¶26

3/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.1863 of 2023

¶29

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent has also

¶30

received instructions and does not dispute the statements made by the petitioner in the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition with regard to the dates and events referred to supra. Therefore, it is made clear that the principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondent before passing of the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application seeking for refund.

¶31

Hence, the impugned order has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶32

Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The respondent shall pass final orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after adhering to the principles of natural justice and by affording a personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶33

4/7

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.1863 of 2023

¶36

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶37

Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

01.02.2023

¶39

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No ab

¶40

5/7

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.1863 of 2023

¶43

¶44

Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Guindy Division, Chennai South Commissionerate of Central Taxes, 8th Floor, MHU Complex, GST Bhavan, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

¶45

6/7

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.1863 of 2023

¶48

ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,

¶49

¶50

W.P.No.1863 of 2023

¶51

01.02.2023 (1/2)

¶52

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

¶53

7/7

M/s.Lenovo India Private Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Lenovo India Private Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of

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

Tej Estates LLP Vs Government of India

M/s.Ariff and Co. Vs Export Promotion capital goods (Epcg) Committee

M/s. Schneider Prototyping Indian Pvt. Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

P.Ravichandran Vs The General manager

M/s.Isha Exim Vs The Commissioner of Customs

Suguna Ravichandran Vs The Income Tax Officer