KARUNA KUMARI V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE

WPC/279/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Karuna Kumari, the petitioner, who challenged an order passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi, under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner contended that the order was issued without an independent enquiry and without providing her an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that notices were issued but were returned due to 'insufficient address', and subsequently, an email notice was sent which the petitioner failed to respond to. The court found that the principles of natural justice were not adequately followed and thus set aside the impugned order, remanding the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744220 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Finance Act, 1994, Section 33-A of the CEA., 1944, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR; ANURAG VIJAY; OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN PASARI; SIDHI JALAN
• Keywords: E-mail notice; Finance act; Natural Justice; Unregistered Dealer; Insufficient address
• Section: 194 I; 194(C); 194-J; 194-H

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 279 of 2024 Karuna Kumari ... Petitioner Versus The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi … … ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate. Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. SC, CGST Mr. Anurag Vijay, Jr. SC, CGST Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate --------- Order No.02/Dated: 16.07.2024 Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking for a direction to the respondent to show cause as to how and under what authority of law, without carrying an independent enquiry before initiating the proceeding under the Finance Act, 1994, which has civil and penal consequences as against an unregistered dealer and contended that the order impugned has been passed on 29.11.2023, released on 05.12.2023 without giving notice to him, therefore, seeking for quashing of the same, she has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that before passing the order dated 29.11.2023, the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing in the matter, as, no notice has been issued to the petitioner, therefore, she could not participate in the proceeding but, finally the Respondent-authority has passed the order impugned, which cannot sustain in the eye of law as the principles of natural justice has not been complied with. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended by bringing to the notice of this Court that though the notices have been issued by referring to the adjudicatory order, but the same has been returned with the postal remark ‘insufficient address’, but, subsequently, thereafter, a notice was issued by the e-mail as per the provisions contained in Section 33-A of the CEA., 1944, but, in spite of such notice, since the petitioner has not approached, therefore, the Appellate Authority has passed the order impugned, which cannot be said to be an illegal one causing interference of this Court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, that the proceeding was initiated by issuance of demand-cum-show cause notice on 18.10.2021 against the petitioner on the information regarding value of service rendered by her, as declared by them in their Income Tax Return and that deduction at source data i.e. amount paid to the petitioner by various parties and the Income Tax deducted at source, as reflected under Section 194 (C), 194 (H), 194 (I) and 194 (J) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the financial year 2016-17, which has been received from the Income Tax Department, therefore, the steps have been taken by issuing notice to the petitioner but the same has not been made sufficient, as has been indicated in the order impugned itself and the same has been returned with the postal remark ‘insufficient address’, but, personally, notice was issued to the petitioner through e-mail on the ID provided by her as per the provisions contained in section 33A of the CEA., 1944, but, nothing is pointed out about the service of notice by e-mail to the petitioner. In course of hearing, when this Court confronted this point to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is contended yes, that she has instructions that no such e-mail has been attached to the petitioner. In any case, since the grievance of the petitioner is that she was not given opportunity of hearing, we thought it proper that the principles of natural justice have to be complied with. 6. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in Annexure-3, dated-29.11.2023, released on 05.12.2023 is, hereby, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to hear the matter afresh by giving opportunity of hearing. Needless to say that the petitioner shall appear before the adjudicating authority on 31st of July, 2024 and on that date, she shall produce the necessary documents before the adjudicating authority and by giving opportunity of hearing, the matter shall be disposed of at the earliest. 7. Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of. (DR. B. R. Sarangi, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) APK/Tanuj "