Remanded

M/S.R v. Engineering Construction v the Commissioner

Madras HC24 Sept 2024WP/14182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an ex-parte GST assessment order passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner was unable to participate due to the death of his son and seizure of records by police. The matter was remitted to the tax authorities for fresh consideration after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order and consequential communication set aside; matter remitted to 3rd respondent for reconsideration after providing personal hearing.

M/S.R v Engineering Construction Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.14182 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 24.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.14182 of 2024 & W.M.P.Nos.15373, 15375 and 15376 of 2024

¶7

M/s R.V.Engineering Construction No.58, Sundarammal Illam, Elango Street Poombukar Nagar, Ernavoor – 600 057 Represented by its sole Proprietor Mr.Ramaiya Vivekanandan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner Office of Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Office of Commercial Taxes Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶10

2.Joint Commissioner (ST) Tiruvallur Division Integrated Commercial Taxes Building Chennai North Division No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, (Walltax Road) Vepery, Chennai – 600 003.

¶11

3.Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Thiruvottiyur Assessment Circle Integrated Commercial Taxes Building Chennai North Division No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road (Walltax Road) Vepery, Chennai – 600 003.

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.14182 of 2024

¶15

4.The Branch Manager Bank of Baroda Wimco Nagar Branch, No.665, T.H.Road Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019. ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records culminating in Order No. GSTIN 33AATPV9003B1ZN/ 2017-18 dated 28.12.2023 issued by the 3 rd respondent and consequential communication dated 09.05.2024 addressed to the 4 th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3 rd respondent to refund to the petitioner, all the amounts recovered / realized from the petitioner pursuant to the Order No. GSTIN 33AATPV9003B1ZN/2017-18 dated 28.12.2023 issued by the 3 rd respondent.

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Hari Babu

¶18

For the Respondents: Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, GA for RR1 to 3 Mr.J.Harikrishna for R4

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenging the impugned assessment Order No. GSTIN

¶21

33AATPV9003B1ZN/ 2017-18 dated 28.12.2023 issued by the 3 rd respondent,

¶22

the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.14182 of 2024

¶26

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a registered dealer under TN GST

¶27

Act. The petitioner – Company has been regularly filing the GST returns and making payments of all the statutory taxes, without delay or default. However, all of a sudden, on 13.05.2024, the petitioner's Banker – the 4 th respondent herein sent a communication dated 09.05.2024 stating that the petitioner – Company had defaulted in payment of tax, hence affecting under Section 75 (12) of the TN GST Act, 2017 / CGST Act 2017 was issued by the 3 rd respondent on 09.05.2024. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶28

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an exparte assessment order was passed. The petitioner was not in a position to participate in the proceedings and also he was not able to file all the records, since the relevant particulars were seized by the police personnel in connection with the murder of the petitioner's son. Therefore, the petitioner was not able to participate and file his reply. Though all the relevant particulars were uploaded in the online web portal, the impugned order was passed without considering the same, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is only the respondents who have

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.14182 of 2024

¶32

failed to provide any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, to put forth

¶33

his case.

¶34

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

5. It appears that due to the death of the petitioner's son, he was not able to file the reply. Further, all the relevant documents were seized by the police official for investigation. Thus, the petitioner was completely handicapped in filing his reply and to participate in the proceedings.

¶36

6. Therefore, considering the aspect that the impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and in the interest of justice, this Court feels that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case before the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.14182 of 2024

¶40

7. Accordingly, the impugned order No. GSTIN 33AATPV9003B1ZN/

¶41

2017-18 dated 28.12.2023 issued by the 3 rd respondent and consequential communication dated 09.05.2024 addressed to the 4 th respondent are set aside. While setting aside the impugned orders, this Court remits the matter back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner is directed to file his reply within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After receipt of the reply, the authorities concerned shall fix a date for personal hearing by sending a notice to the petitioner providing 14 clear days time and thereafter, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶42

8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

24.09.2024

¶44

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶45

Jer

¶46

5/7

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.14182 of 2024

¶49

¶50

1.The Commissioner Office of Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Office of Commercial Taxes Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶51

2.Joint Commissioner (ST) Tiruvallur Division Integrated Commercial Taxes Building Chennai North Division No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, (Walltax Road) Vepery, Chennai – 600 003.

¶52

¶53

4.The Branch Manager Bank of Baroda Wimco Nagar Branch, No.665, T.H.Road Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019.

¶54

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

¶55

6/7

¶56

W.P.No.14182 of 2024

¶57

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., Jer

¶58

W.P.No.14182 of 2024 & W.M.P.Nos.15373, 15375 and 15376 of 2024

¶59

24.09.2024

¶60

7/7

¶61

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

M/S.R v. Engineering Construction v the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.R v. Engineering Construction v the Commissioner

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

Muthukumar sivakami Vs The Principal commissioner of Income Tax

M/s.Sri Rengasamy sakthi Vs the principal Commisisoner

M/S.Peacock Fashions, Vs the Deputy Commissioenr of Customs

L.G.Balakrishnan and Bros Ltd., Vs Assessment unit

V Srinivasan Vs The Deputy Director Of Income Tax

M/s. Mars International India Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner