M/s. Shrine Engineering Private Limited V. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Nalgonda-GST Division and Superintendent of Central Tax, Nalgonda-GST Division and Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue

WP/15425/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Shrine Engineering Private Limited, the petitioner, challenging an Order-in-Original dated 14.09.2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Nalgonda, which was contested for being passed without a personal hearing and for being in violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural norms under the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that despite not responding to a subsequent notice, the earlier response should have been considered, referencing a judgment from the Madras High Court. The respondents contended that the petitioner had a statutory remedy to appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and had been given an opportunity for a personal hearing, which was documented in the Order-in-Original.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 810930 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Imperial Shipping Service v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, CGST Act, 2017, CGST Rules
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B REDDY; GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN NAIR
• Keywords: Extended time limit; Limitation; Natural Justice; Personal hearing; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 142(1); 107; 75(4); 163A

Judgement Text

"+ 13411 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) t 4ONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND ,/ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO ( WRIT PETITION NO:15425 0F 2024 Between: AND 1 Ir,4/S.ShrineEngineeringPrivateLinnled,RepresentedbVitsauthorizedsiqnatory. Pivush Nahaiaanbhai rvroit'irf,wd'\" rfuuitig- itt Office At Altius 3 Near Sdaligr-amt,urdlow, Tha!tej, Ahmedabad .,,PETITIONER Assrs|ant Cornmissioner oi Cenllai Tax, Nalgorrda^GST D ,i;ior 6.2-1 1, LPT lrrrirE sloil.2, Hyderabad Road' Nalgonda - 508001 Suoerintendent of Central Tax, Nalgonda^GST Division 6-2:11' LPT f '4arket' eld.L Z, Hyderabad Road, Ndgonda 508001 Union of lndia, IMinistry of Finance, De-partment of Revenue' Represented by Secretary, North Blocli, New Delhi-1 10001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF IVANDAI ,'IUS declaring the impugned Order in Original daled 14092023 bearing via DIN No. 20230956YQ000000A9C8 passed by Respondent No 1 as illegal,inviolationofprinciplesofnaturaljustice,inViolationofsectionT5(4)of the CGST Act. Rule 142(1) oI the CGST Rules and barred by limitation as the demand lor FY 2O17-18 is made pursuant to the extended time limit under Sectionl63AoftheCGSTAidvideNotificationNo.0g/2023-CentralTaxdated 31 .O3.2023 and Notification No 56/2023 dated 28'12'2023' 2 3 I I I I .. .;'-e lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition uncler Section '1 5'1 cpc praying that in the circums,tances stated in the affidavit filec ir support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the operaticn cf irnpugned order 20230956YQ00000,1A9C8 passed conseq uential reco €)ry proceedings. dateC 14.O9.2023 by Respondent bearinS No.1 via DIN in clud ing No. any Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PRAVEEN K NAIR Counsel for the Respondent No.1&2 : Ms.B.SApNA REDDy (Jr. SC FOR lT) c o u n s e I ro r t h e R e s p o n o \" \"J*i 3 oBIf HXfIiT'-=r.^; l\"d' b \"., o.. o E N E RA L The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHTVAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.15425 0F 2024 ORDER (Per Hon'ble SP,J) Heard Sri Praveen K Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for respondent Nos' 1 and 2; and Sri B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India' for respondent No.3. 2. With the consent, IinallY'heard 3. This petition is directed against the impugned Order-in Original, dated 14.09.2023. l'earned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, pursuant to a notice issued by the Department, filed his reply, dated 7a 08 '2022 (Exhibit P5)' The respondents issued another notice, dated 17 'O4 '2023 ' The petitioner could not frle response to this notice Thereafter' the respondents passed the impugned ord'er, dated 14'O9 '2023 and did not give any opportunity of personal hearing' z 4. Thc first limb of argument of learned cour sel for the petitioner is brLs;ed on Section 75@) of GST Act, 2Ol7 (flt short 'the Act'), which <:r,r,isages that opportunity of personal he: ring can be granted if requt:st is received in writing from the persorL chargeabie with tax/pcrLalty or where any ad.verse decision is contemplated agarnst suc r person. The adverse decision was certainly contemplate cl a nd in that event, .even if petitioner did not file its reply, it shouk[ have been given an opportunity of persoleal hearing' 5. The se cond limb of argurpent is that in view of iudgment of Madras HigtL t)ourt in M/s.Imperial Shipping Sen.ice a. The Assistant Commisston er (ST), Chennait , even if pe titioner has not lrled repl1' to the show cause notice, dated 17 .O4 .2O23, tlle previous repll' dated 1B.OB.2O22r$1bu1d have been conr;idered. 6. 1-6ap11r:,1 counsel for the petitioner submit s that the petitioner's Chrartered Accountant met wrth an a< cident and because of that appeal could not be frled in time. 'lhe medical documents arr: filed along with a memo on 27.06.2024. 7 . Ms.Saprna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Cou::rsel, urged that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of preferrin g an appeal under SectiorL 107 of the Act. The petitioner was given an ' zoz+ 1s1TMI 182 .;: t opportunity of personal hearing, which is clear from the averments of Order in-Original. Thus, this petition is not entertainable' 8. In the peculiar facts of this case, as the petitioner's Chartered Accountant, met with a.n accident, . during the period of limitation for preferring u.., ,pp.al, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within fifteen days from today. If the appeal is preferred within the aforesaid time, the appellate authority shall consider and decicle it on merits and shali not throw lt'urrer board on the ground of delay' The Writ Petition is accordingly disPosed of without expressing any opinion on merits. No costs Interlocutory applipiir6,v, .if any pending, shall also stand closed I 1. 2. 3. 4 5 6 7 L To, A //TRUE COPY// The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Nalgo PT Market, Blocjc 2, HYderabad Road, Nalgonda - 508 The SuPerintendent of Central Tax, NalgondA GST trilarket, Block 2, HYderabad Road, Nalgonda 508001 The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, De North Block, New Delhi-1 10001 One CC to SRI PRAVEEN K NAlR, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRI BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC SD/. T. JAYASREE SiSTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER GST Division 6-2-1 1 , 0r9,1r,.,\". 6-2-1 1, LPr partment of Revenue' FOR INCOME TAX). 8I\"'3i to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIuAR, (Deputv,s.olicitor General of lndia)' ;i;;6;r;; t-o.ir,\" strt\" ot rJansana at Hvderabad loPUCl TWo CD CoPies. BSK GJP -/ v l i I l l / I ) HIGH COURT DATED:08107 t2024 1 rtE ,il€ z , 2I nN 2925 t ORDER WP.No.15425 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS { rr,r'r.'Ir1'11 '-ji-:!_ q lb q /,v I I "