2023 (10) TMI 982 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has not responded the notice - HELD THAT - After receipt of the impugned order only, the petitioner came to know that the notice was sent to e-Mail I.D. and the said e-Mail I.D. is not belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there it is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order, dated 27.04.2022, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to submit his objections, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order dated 27.04.2022, violation of principles of natural justice.

Challenge to impugned order:
The petitioner contested the total turnover figures mentioned in the impugned order, highlighting an alleged excess payment made. It was noted that the petitioner had not been granted a personal hearing before the order was passed.

Violation of principles of natural justice:
The respondent claimed that a notice was sent to the petitioner via email, but it was later discovered that the email address used was not owned by the petitioner. This discrepancy led to a finding by the Court that there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

In consideration of the arguments presented, the High Court of Madras, under the leadership of Honourable Mrs. Justice S. Srimathy, proceeded to address the issues raised in the writ petition. The Court, upon hearing the arguments put forth by Mr. N. Viswanathan for the petitioner and Mr. B. Saravanan, Additional Government Pleader, for the respondent, and examining the relevant documents, made the following determinations.

The petitioner contended discrepancies in the total turnover figures as stated in the impugned order, emphasizing an alleged excess payment made in comparison to the figures provided. Furthermore, it was brought to light that the petitioner had not been afforded a personal hearing prior to the issuance of the impugned order.

On the other hand, the respondent asserted that a notice had been dispatched to the petitioner, albeit through an email address that was later revealed not to belong to the petitioner. This revelation led the Court to conclude that there had been a clear infringement of the principles of natural justice in this regard.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.04.2022 was deemed quashed by the Court. The petitioner was directed to submit objections within three weeks of receiving a copy of the order, following which the respondent was instructed to consider the objections and provide the petitioner with a personal hearing. Subsequently, the respondent was mandated to issue a speaking order within 8 weeks to conclude the matter.

In light of the above considerations and directives, the Writ Petition was allowed by the Court, with no costs imposed. Additionally, W.M.P(MD)No.15838 of 2023 was allowed, while W.M.P(MD)No.15841 was closed as per the Court's ruling.