M/S. P C Thomas & Company vs Superintendent
2024 Latest Caselaw 10627 Ker

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

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