2023 (9) TMI 281 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - respondent had passed impugned order without calling the petitioner for hearing - HELD THAT - It is evident that the order has been passed in a tearing hurry, although the petitioner has requested for hearing after 18.05.2023. The petitioner appears to have made out a prima facie case on merits. That apart, on merits also, it appears that the petitioner has a good case, as the petitioner has assessed the respective bill of entries, which were at the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), wherein, the goods were stored after their initial import - The only difficulty has arisen on account of non-filing of the details by the customs in respect of the four of the bills of entries out of six. The impugned order set aside and the case remitted back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to Assessment Order u/s gross violation of principles of natural justice, Passing of order without calling petitioner for hearing, Non-filing of details by customs for certain bill of entries.

Judgment Summary:

Challenge to Assessment Order: The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order u/s gross violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner had requested for a hearing to be listed after a certain date due to the counsel's unavailability. Despite this, the impugned order was passed without calling the petitioner for a hearing. The respondent claimed that a Reminder-2 Notice was sent to the petitioner with a new hearing date, but the order was passed hastily before the requested date. The court found that the order was passed in a tearing hurry and set it aside, remitting the case back to the respondent for a speaking order to be passed within six weeks.

Non-filing of details by customs: The petitioner had assessed bill of entries at the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) where goods were stored after import, but faced difficulty due to non-filing of details by customs for four out of six bill of entries. Despite this, the court noted that the petitioner appeared to have a prima facie case on merits and directed that the petitioner be heard before the new order is passed by the respondent.

Conclusion: The High Court of Madras, in a judgment delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice C. Saravanan, set aside the impugned Assessment Order due to the gross violation of natural justice principles and directed the respondent to pass a speaking order within six weeks. The petitioner's challenge on the grounds of non-filing of customs details for certain bill of entries was also considered, with the court emphasizing the importance of hearing the petitioner before any new order is passed. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directions and no costs were awarded.