Mozart Global Furniture VS State Tax Officer

The matter at hand concerns the amalgamation of multiple writ petitions owing to their common underlying issue. The petitioners involved in these writs have received notices under Section 74, coupled with Section 122(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax/ State Goods and Service Tax (CGST/SGST) Act, intimating potential tax or penalty liabilities derived from estimated turnover for the assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.

Within their respective petitions, the petitioners assert that they were deprived of the opportunity to obtain copies of documents seized from their premises and were also denied the chance to offer their comments on the same. They argue that the respondents are now advancing adjudication proceedings based on these notices without affording them proper procedural fairness.

The crux of the petitions revolves around the petitioners’ plea for a directive to the first respondent, typically the tax authority, to furnish copies of the documents upon which the notices were founded. Additionally, they seek an opportunity to articulate objections regarding the reliance placed on these documents prior to the commencement of adjudicative procedures.

This contention underscores a fundamental principle of administrative law—namely, the right to be heard and participate in proceedings that directly affect one’s rights and interests. By requesting access to pertinent documents and the chance to present objections, the petitioners aim to ensure transparency, fairness, and due process in the adjudication of their tax liabilities. This aligns with the broader legal principles governing administrative actions, which emphasize the importance of procedural regularity and the protection of individual rights in the face of government action.

Thus, the writ petitions bring to the forefront not only the specific grievances of the petitioners regarding the alleged procedural irregularities but also broader questions concerning the proper administration of tax laws and the safeguarding of individual rights within the regulatory framework. The resolution of these petitions holds significance not only for the parties directly involved but also for the broader legal landscape surrounding administrative proceedings and the principles of fairness and justice that underpin them.

After considering arguments presented by both the learned counsel representing the petitioners and the government pleader representing the respondents, and taking into account the facts and circumstances surrounding the case along with the arguments exchanged, it is noted that the petitioners, albeit belatedly, have made efforts to request copies of the documents seized from their premises and used as the basis for issuing Ext.P1 notices.

Given that the adjudication proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notices have not yet commenced, and recognizing that a denial of the petitioners’ request for copies of the seized documents would constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice, the following directives are issued:

1. Within a period of two weeks from the present date, the petitioners are instructed to approach the first respondent.
2. Upon the petitioners’ approach, the first respondent is mandated to provide copies of the documents seized from the petitioners’ premises, and which are relied upon in Ext.P1 notices, within one week from the date of the petitioners’ approach to the first respondent.

These directions are designed to ensure that the petitioners are afforded the opportunity to review the documents crucial to their case and to prepare their objections, thus upholding the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.

Expanding upon the directives issued in this matter, the court further delineates a comprehensive procedural framework to safeguard the petitioners’ rights and ensure procedural fairness:

ii. In conjunction with providing copies of the seized documents, the court mandates the first respondent to extend a generous period of three weeks to the petitioners, commencing from the date of receipt of these copies. This timeframe is specifically allocated to facilitate the petitioners in formulating and articulating their objections pertaining to the reliance placed on the aforementioned documents within the Ext.P1 notices.

iii. Following the submission of objections by the petitioners, the court stipulates a subsequent timeline, instructing the first respondent to proceed with the adjudication of the issues delineated within the Ext.P1 notices. This adjudicative process is to be initiated within a month from the date of receipt of the petitioners’ objections. Crucially, this adjudication must be conducted through a fair and impartial hearing, affording the petitioners an equitable opportunity to present their case, evidence, and arguments.

iv. As a procedural requirement aimed at ensuring transparency and facilitating further proceedings, the petitioners are directed to furnish a copy of both the writ petition and the court’s judgment to the first respondent. This documentation serves as a formal notification, prompting the first respondent to undertake any necessary actions in compliance with the directives issued by the court.

By delineating these directives, the court endeavors to establish a structured and equitable procedural mechanism, effectively balancing the interests of both the petitioners and the respondents. The allocation of ample time for the petitioners to formulate their objections, coupled with the stipulated timeline for adjudication, underscores the court’s commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Additionally, the procedural requirement to furnish copies of pertinent documents ensures transparency and promotes the expeditious progression of the legal proceedings. Through these directives, the court seeks to engender confidence in the judicial process while safeguarding the rights and interests of the parties involved in this dispute.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: