Allowed

M/S. Joshikaa Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC2 Feb 2024WP/2299/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a GST assessment order dated 25.07.2023, the petitioner alleged breach of natural justice as no personal hearing or adequate notice was provided. The Court held that the order was passed without a personal hearing and violated natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.07.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration after a personal hearing; fresh order to be issued within two months of petitioners reply.

M/S. Joshikaa Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2299 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.2299 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.2487, 2489 of 2024

¶7

M/s.Joshikaa Enterprises Represented by its Proprietor Mr.VijayaKumar Santhosh 45/66, Southwest Boag Road, Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 017. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Assistant Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, No.46, III Floor Greenways Road, Nandanam, Zone VI, Chennai Central Tamil Nadu 600 028.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶12

India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records leading to the issuance of Order-in-original No.ZD330723106203Z dated 25.07.2023 with Form DRC-07 dated

¶13

1/7

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.2299 of 2024

¶16

25.07.2023, by the respondent herein and quash the same, and direct

¶17

to consider the matter afresh, after giving full and fair opportunity to

¶18

the Petitioner to submit its reply and after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.T.C.Prakash

¶20

For Respondent : Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, AGP (T)

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner assails an assessment order dated 25.07.2023 on

¶24

the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.

¶25

The petitioner is the Proprietor of Joshikaa Enterprises, which

¶26

carries on business of trading in milk products and electrical products. By asserting that the GST practitioner engaged by the

¶27

2/7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.2299 of 2024

¶30

petitioner met with an accident, it is stated that the petitioner was unaware of the intimation, show cause notice and impugned order until the petitioner received a call with regard to amounts due and payable as per the assessment order.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on sub-section (4) of Section 75 and contends that a personal hearing should be provided before any adverse order is issued. By drawing reference to the reminder dated 14.07.2023, he contends that no personal hearing was offered to the petitioner.

¶32

Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. She submits that an intimation and show cause notice were posted on the GST portal.

¶33

On examining the impugned assessment order, it is evident

¶34

that such order was issued in view of the fact that the petitioner did

¶35

3/7

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.2299 of 2024

¶38

not reply to the show cause notice. From the documents on record, it also appears that the petitioner was not provided a personal hearing, including by reminder dated 14.07.2023. Solely for the purposes of providing a personal hearing to the petitioner, impugned order calls for interference.

¶39

Consequently, impugned order dated 25.07.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. The petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within a maximum period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the assessing officer is directed to issue a fresh assessment order after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. Such fresh assessment order shall be issued within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's reply.

¶40

4/7

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.2299 of 2024

¶43

W.P.No.2299 of 2024 is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.2487, 2489 of 2024 are closed.

¶44

02.02.2024

¶45

rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No To

¶46

Assistant Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, No.46, III Floor Greenways Road, Nandanam, Zone VI, Chennai Central Tamil Nadu 600 028.

¶47

5/7

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.2299 of 2024

¶50

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶51

rna

¶52

W.P.No.2299 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.2487, 2489 of 2024

¶53

6/7

¶54

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

W.P.No.2299 of 2024

02.02.2024

7/7

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

M/S. Joshikaa Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Joshikaa Enterprises v. 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

Great Heights Developers LLP Vs Additional Commissioner

Vehicle Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/s.Kumaragiri Textiles Vs The Assistant commissioner (St)

M/S. T.T. Energies Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

V.Mohan, Vs the Secretary to Government

A Panneerselvam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu