Kerala High Court
M/S. P C Thomas & Company vs Superintendent on 11 April, 2024
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WA NO. 514 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO.10560 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M/S. P C THOMAS & COMPANY,
PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM P O;
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. PAUL
THOMAS., PIN - 682025
BY ADV TOMSON T.EMMANUEL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):
1 SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, ERNAKULAM RANGE-4, 4TH
FLOOR, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KATHRIKADAVU, COCHIN,
PIN - 682017
2 CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS ,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, PIN - 110023
BY ADV RAJESH K RAJU, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
WA No.514 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The appellant herein was the petitioner in WP(C).No.10560 of 2024, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by relegating the appellant to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal against Ext.P4 order in original passed by the 1 st respondent. Before us, it is the contention of Sri.Tomson T. Emmanuel, the learned counsel for the appellant that the challenge in the Writ Petition against Ext.P4 order was premised solely on the contention that, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had preferred a detailed reply to the show cause notice issued to him, the findings in Ext.P4 order were not preceded by any discussion on the reply submitted by the appellant, and it was a mere mechanical confirmation of the show cause notice without any application of mind by the adjudicating authority.
2. We also heard Sri.Rajesh K.Raju, the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the rival submissions and on a perusal of Ext.P4 order that was impugned in the Writ Petition, we find that the discussions and findings in Ext.P4 order are contained in only one :3: WA No.514 of 2024 sentence, which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the adjudicating authority to the contentions raised by the appellant in the reply to the show cause notice. We find that the Ext.P4 order is vitiated by a patent non-application of mind, and it is not supported by any valid reasons to justify the demand of tax, interest, and penalty against the appellant.
4. We, therefore, allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and by quashing Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall now re-consider the matter and pass fresh orders in lieu of Ext.P4 in strict compliance with the provisions, inter alia, of Section 73(3) of the GST Act, after hearing the appellant and considering the contentions in the reply filed by the appellant to the show cause notice issued to him. The fresh order to be passed by the 1st respondent shall contain reasons for the decision arrived at therein.
The Writ Appeal is disposed as above.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE mns