Madras High Court
M/S.Maheswari Enterprises vs The State Tax Officer on 19 July, 2021
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.4859, 4860 and 4862 of 2021
M/s.Maheswari Enterprises,
Represented by its Proprietor B.Ranjith
... Petitioner in all W.Ps.
Vs.
The State Tax Officer,
Adjudication Cell – II,
Madurai. ... Respondent in all W.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER:Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN
33ALNPR7884F2ZG/2017-18, GSTIN 33ALNPR7884F2ZG/2018-19 and
GSTIN 33ALNPR7884F2ZG/2019-20 respectively dated 15.10.2020 and to
quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural
justice and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording
an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the
Tamilnadu Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 within such time as may be
directed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
(In all W.Ps)
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar
For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Govt. Advocate
COMMON ORDER
This Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance
of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the
respondent in GSTIN 33ALNPR7884F2ZG/2017-18, GSTIN
33ALNPR7884F2ZG/2018-19 and GSTIN 33ALNPR7884F2ZG/2019-20
respectively dated 15.10.2020 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in
violation of the principles of natural justice and direct the respondent to pass
assessment order afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing as
contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Tamilnadu Goods and Services Tax
Act 2017, within a stipulated time.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner is a distributor for M/s.Vodafone Idea Limited., and
dealing with Vodafone Electric Charge(Vodafone EC) and got registered under
the GST Act in GSTIN 33ALNPR7884F2ZG. On 06.11.2019, the Department
had cancelled the petitioner's registration and therefore, the respondent had
issued a notice dated 12.05.2020 stating that after the cancellation of
registration, the petitioner had effected business transactions and not filed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
returns. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the notification issued
by the Government with regard to reactivation of registration and therefore,
filed an application dated 12.08.2020 before the Department, for revocation of
GST registration along with returns and tax payments. Subsequently, the
respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 30.09.2020 calling for objection
within fifteen days and on receipt of said notice, the petitioner approached his
Charted Accountant and had tried to get the records to file a reply before the
respondent. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent
has passed the impugned orders on the very last date fixed for submission of
reply. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that reasonable
opportunity of personal hearing should be given to the petitioner to explain his
case as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and
therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice as such, the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the common judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., vs. the Assistant
Commissioner(CT), Coimbatore (W.A.Nos.234 to 240 of 2015). The relevant
portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“DENIAL OF PERSONAL HEARING:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
10. The respondent denied the appellant opportunity of
hearing only on the ground that objection was not given to the
pre-assessment notices. Even if objection was not given, still the
assessing authority was expected to post the matter for hearing
by issuing notice to the assessee. In case the assessee fail to
appear, it is open to the assessment authority to pass orders on
merits. We make the position clear that the failure to submit
objection to the pre-assessment notice would not give a right to
the Assessment Officer to deny opportunity of personal hearing
to the assessee.”
4. The respondent has filed counter affidavits along with vacate stay
petitions and would state that since the petitioner had not sought for personal
hearing, the proposal in the show cause notices was confirmed. He would
further state that even as per the provision under Section 75(4) of the TNGST
Act, 2017, an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is
received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or where any
adverse decision is contemplated against such person. In this case, the
petitioner has not sought for personal hearing, as such, there is no violation of
the above provision. Further, when the petitioner had not filed reply within 15
days from the date of show cause notice, he had not even made a request for
extension of time for filing reply and therefore, the show cause notice was
confirmed. Thus, he would state that the ground of violation of principles of
natural justice is not established, as such, the impugned orders do not require
interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the materials
placed before the Court.
6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural
justice as the orders were passed without giving an opportunity of personal
hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would contend that
since the petitioner neither submitted reply within 15 days time nor sought for
extension of time and personal hearing as per Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act,
the show-cause notices were confirmed vide impugned orders, as such, there is
no violation of the principles of natural justice.
7.Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed reply within the time nor sought
for personal hearing as per Section 75(4) of the Act. But, equally when the
authorities decided to pass adverse orders, then, necessarily personal hearing
has to be given as per the judgment in G.V.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd's case (cited
supra), but in the present case, no such opportunity of personal hearing has
been given to the petitioner and therefore, considering the present facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to give one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
more opportunity to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the impugned orders
passed by the respondent in GSTIN 33ALNPR7884F2ZG/2017-18, GSTIN
33ALNPR7884F2ZG/2018-19 and GSTIN 33ALNPR7884F2ZG/2019-20
respectively, dated 15.10.2020, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to
the respondent for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity
including the personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the
TNGST Act, 2017 and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Such exercise shall be completed by the respondent, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say
that the petitioner shall co-operate with the respondent.
8.The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions.
No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
19.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
PM
Note:(i) In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official purposes,
but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
The State Tax Officer,
Adjudication Cell – II,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
PM
W.P(MD)Nos.6245, 6247 and 6249 of 2021
19.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
