Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax vs Rajarajeshwari Buildcon Private ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3014 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

               W.A. NO. 74 OF 2021 (T-RES)
                            IN
               W.P. NO.4473 OF 2020 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.      JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
        MEMBER OF DESIGNATED COMMITTEE
        BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE
        C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
        BENGALURU-560001.

2.      COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
        MEMBER OF DESIGNATED COMMITTEE
        BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE
        CR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
        BENGALURU - 560001.

3.      THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
        CENTRAL TAX
        BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE
        C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
        BENGALURU-560001.

4.      UNION OF INDIA
        REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY
        MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT
        OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF
        INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS
        ROOM NO.46, NORTH BLOCK
                                    2



       NEW DELHI-110 001.


                                                      ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. VANITA K.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

RAJARAJESHWARI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.67/1, SRIRANGA COMPLEX
NETKALLAPPA CIRCLE
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. MITESH KUMAR J SHA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT 59/2, G-3
G/F SOUNDHARYA REGENCY
BUGLE ROCK ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560 004.
                                       ... RESPONDENT
                          ---

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

13.07.2020,    PASSED   BY   THE       LEARNED   SINGLE   JUDGE   IN

W.P.NO.4473/2020 (T-RES) AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND

ISSUE SUCH DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN

THE    FACTS     AND     CIRCUMSTANCES           OF    THE    CASE.



       THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS

DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3



                         JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal takes an exception to order

dated 13.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which writ petition preferred by the respondent has been

disposed of and the matter has been remitted to the

Designated Committee of Bangalore South Commissionerate

to issue notice to the respondent and to pass a fresh order in

accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing

to the respondent.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are that the respondent is a private limited company, which

is engaged in the business of construction. The respondent

submitted an application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy

Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019. The Designated

Committee of Bangalore South Commissionerate has passed

an order on the aforesaid application dated 05.02.2020. The

aforesaid application was assailed in a writ petition before the

learned Single Judge on the sole ground that the petitioners

were not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The learned Single Jude has accepted the aforesaid

contention and has remitted the matter to the Designated

Committee of Bangalore South Commissionerate to afford an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a orders

afresh in accordance with law. In the aforesaid factual

background, this petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the respondent was granted a fair and reasonable

opportunity of being heard which was not availed of by the

respondent.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and have perused the record. The relevant extract

of para 4 and 5 of the order read as under:

4. Facts stated hereinabove show that petitioner has filed written submissions, but has not appeared before the authority to explain the payments. Though it is strongly contended by Shri.Aravind that petitioner has failed to utilize the opportunity, it is fundamental that before passing any order, a reasonable opportunity is

required to be given. It is not in dispute that the first date of hearing was 29.01.2020 and the second date was 05.02.2020. It is claimed by the petitioner that all documents were submitted on that day and it is asserted by Shri.Aravind that except filing the papers, none appeared on behalf of petitioner. In any event, it is not in dispute that documents are in place. In the circumstances, it is just and appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner.

5. As per order at Annuxure A, petitioner is called upon to pay Rs.1,14,68,528/-. It is claimed by the petitioner that more than Rs.1 crore has been already paid. In view of the above recorded facts and the documents filed by the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, an opportunity can be granted on strict terms to the petitioner to appear and present its case.

5. Thus, the learned Single Judge has taken note of

the fact that the respondent had submitted all the requisite

documents. However, no appearance was made on behalf of

the respondent to explain his case. Therefore, the learned

Single Judge has in the facts and circumstances of the case

thought it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the

respondent to make its case before the appellant. The order

does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of

this court in this intra court appeal.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,

the same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE SS