Case Title | Jak Communications Private Limited vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY |
Citation | 2023 (12) GSTPanacea 251 HC Madras W.P.No.35453 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.35420 of 2023 |
Judgment Date | 19-December-2023 |
The writ petition in question has been lodged to contest the validity of an order issued by the first respondent on May 25, 2023. The petitioner seeks to challenge the aforementioned order through legal recourse. The specific details and grounds for contestation are not provided in this summary, but it can be inferred that the petitioner believes there are legal flaws or procedural irregularities in the order issued by the first respondent. As such, the petition aims to have the order reviewed, potentially overturned, or modified by the appropriate legal authority. The reasons for challenging the order and the potential implications of its validity or invalidity may become clearer upon further examination of the petition and relevant legal proceedings.
Ms. E. Ranganayaki, a knowledgeable Additional Government Pleader, represents the respondents in a legal matter. The parties involved mutually agree to address the main writ petition at its initial stage. The counsel for the petitioner asserts that before the contested order of May 25, 2023, several notices, dated December 24, 2021, March 24, 2023, and May 15, 2023, were uploaded on the respondent’s web portal under the “View Additional Notices and Order” section. However, these notices were not physically served to the petitioner, leading to the petitioner’s lack of awareness regarding them. Consequently, the petitioner argues that the impugned order was issued in contravention of the principles of natural justice, as the respondent failed to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond or have a personal hearing before passing the order.
In response, the counsel for the respondent contends that despite the notices being uploaded on the web portal,
The petitioner in this case failed to appear before the respondent for a personal hearing. However, she expressed willingness to comply with any order passed by the Court. After hearing arguments from both the petitioner and respondent, and examining the available records, the Court reached several conclusions.
Firstly, it was noted that several notices and an assessment order were uploaded on a web portal, but the petitioner claimed she was unaware of them as they were not physically served to her. The Court found the petitioner’s reasons for being unaware of the notices uploaded on the web portal to be genuine.
Secondly, the Court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunities to the petitioner before passing any order. However, in this case, the petitioner hadn’t filed a reply or been given a chance for a personal hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed unjust and liable to be set aside.
As a result, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 and remitted the matter back to the respondents. The petitioner was instructed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 24.03.2023 within 21 days from receiving a copy of the Court’s order. Subsequently, the respondent was directed to dispose of the matter after affording adequate opportunities to the petitioner.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of without imposing any costs. Additionally, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Download Pdf:
Jak Communications Private Limited
For Reference Visit:
Madras High Court
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law