2024 (7) TMI 529 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - service of notice of personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioner cannot be said to have been prejudiced merely because the Officer from the Intelligence Department has passed the order. The Officer who investigated and passed the order also is different from the Officer who has passed the impugned order although from the same Department. As mentioned in M/S. RASATHE GARMENTS VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (ST) (INSPN.) , TIRUNELVELI, THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES 2024 (6) TMI 481 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the scheme of the Act also does not contemplate an embargo on an Intelligence Officer from passing the order. Petition dismissed.

Issues:
1. Compliance with statutory requirements for personal hearing notice.
2. Impugned orders passed subsequently after rectification.
3. Interpretation of Circular No.23/2021 clarifying inspection and adjudication procedures.
4. Prejudice due to different officers passing orders within the same department.
5. Applicability of the embargo on an Intelligence Officer from passing orders.

Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Personal Hearing Notice:
The judgment addresses the issue of compliance with statutory requirements for personal hearing notice. It references a previous order where it was observed that issuing a personal hearing notice before receiving an explanation does not fulfill the statutory obligations. The court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matters for fresh orders following proper procedures.

Impugned Orders Passed Subsequently After Rectification:
The petitioner challenges the impugned orders passed subsequently after rectification, citing a circular clarifying the issue. The court evaluates arguments from both sides and considers a similar case where the inspecting officer was allowed to issue a Show Cause Notice. The court directs the State Tax Officer to transmit the Notice to the proper officer for adjudication in accordance with the circular.

Interpretation of Circular No.23/2021 Clarifying Inspection and Adjudication Procedures:
The judgment delves into the interpretation of Circular No.23/2021, emphasizing that inspections completed and adjudications initiated before a certain date must be pursued by inspecting officers, with pending cases sent to the jurisdictional officer. It highlights the importance of following the circular guidelines in handling such cases.

Prejudice Due to Different Officers Passing Orders Within the Same Department:
The petitioner claims prejudice due to different officers passing orders within the same department. The court dismisses this argument, stating that the investigating officer and the officer passing the impugned order were different. It also references a previous court direction related to the issue, maintaining that the scheme of the Act does not restrict an Intelligence Officer from passing orders.

Applicability of the Embargo on an Intelligence Officer from Passing Orders:
The judgment discusses the applicability of any embargo on an Intelligence Officer from passing orders. It cites a previous case to establish that there is no restriction on an Intelligence Officer from issuing orders. The court rejects the writ petitions but grants the petitioner the liberty to file a statutory appeal within a specified period, subject to compliance with relevant statutory requirements.

Overall, the judgment addresses various legal aspects related to compliance with statutory requirements, interpretation of circulars, and the authority of officers within the same department to pass orders. It provides detailed analysis and references previous cases to support its conclusions.

← Previous Next →