Telangana High Court
M/S. Shrine Engineering Private ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax on 8 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.15425 OF 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, finally heard.
3. This petition is directed against the impugned Order-in-
Original, dated 14.09.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner, pursuant to a notice issued by the
Department, filed his reply, dated 18.08.2022 (Exhibit P5). The
respondents issued another notice, dated 17.04.2023. The
petitioner could not file response to this notice. Thereafter, the
respondents passed the impugned order, dated 14.09.2023 and did
not give any opportunity of personal hearing.
4. The first limb of argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is based on Section 75(4) of GST Act, 2017 (for short 'the
Act'), which envisages that opportunity of personal hearing can be
granted if request is received in writing from the person chargeable
with tax/penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated
against such person. The adverse decision was certainly
contemplated and in that event, even if petitioner did not file its
reply, it should have been given an opportunity of personal hearing.
5. The second limb of argument is that in view of judgment of
Madras High Court in M/s.Imperial Shipping Service v. The
Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai 1, even if petitioner has
not filed reply to the show cause notice, dated 17.04.2023, the
previous reply, dated 18.08.2022 should have been considered.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's Chartered Accountant met with an accident and
because of that appeal could not be filed in time. The medical
documents are filed along with a memo on 27.06.2024.
7. Ms.Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel, urged
that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of preferring an appeal
under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner was given an
2024 (5) TMI 182
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 an accident, during the period of
limitation for preferring an appeal, 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 decide it
on merits and shall not throw it over board on the ground of delay.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of without
expressing any opinion on merits. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_____________
Sujoy Paul, J
_______________________________
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
Date: 08.07.2024
Tmk/Tsr
