Ramki Cements Pvt Ltd. VS The State Tax Officer

The Writ Petition in question has been brought forth by the petitioner seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, aiming to nullify an order demanding tax and penalty as per Form GST MOV-09 dated 21.10.2022. Additionally, they seek the release of their goods held by the respondent.

At the agreement of both parties, this Writ Petition is being addressed at the admission stage.

The petitioner, identified as an assessee under GST MOV-09, operates a branch office situated at No.257, PathinParai, Thottakudi, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu 627 151. This branch office, established recently, obtained a GST certificate subsequently.

According to the petitioner’s assertion, an error occurred in the consignment documentation, wherein the destination was mistakenly stated as Chennai instead of the actual intended location. This discrepancy has led to the current legal dispute.

In the course of the legal proceedings, the learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondent, expounded upon their stance, contending that the obligation of notification was adequately discharged by serving notice to the consignment’s driver, a measure deemed compliant with the statutory requirements delineated within the GST Act. Furthermore, they underscored the supplementary action of issuing an email notice on 21.10.2022, further bolstering their argument for procedural adherence.

In counterpoint, the petitioner vociferously challenged this assertion, vehemently contending that the impugned order of 21.10.2022, which forms the crux of the dispute, was indeed promulgated on the very same day. Consequently, they rebuffed the respondent’s claims, casting doubt on the sufficiency and efficacy of the notification measures purportedly undertaken.

The legal deliberations were conducted with due attention to the representations put forth by both parties: M/s. M. Sneha, the erudite counsel representing the petitioner, and Mr. M. Prakash, the astute Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. The adjudicating authority meticulously scrutinized the material documents annexed to the case record, thereby ensuring a thorough examination of the facts and contentions advanced by the parties involved. This comprehensive review aimed to facilitate an equitable and just determination of the matter at hand, taking cognizance of the intricacies inherent within the legal framework governing the dispute.

Following a thorough consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, this Court has arrived at a well-reasoned conclusion. It is the firm opinion of the Court that the petitioner was deprived of a fair and adequate opportunity to address the allegations leveled against them. Crucially, it has come to light that the petitioner did not receive the requisite show cause notice, a procedural lapse that significantly impinges upon their right to due process.

The Court has scrutinized the notification measures undertaken by the respondent, particularly the issuance of the show cause notice to the consignment’s driver. Upon careful examination, it has been determined that such action does not fulfill the standards of adequacy mandated by law. Consequently, the impugned order, which stems from a flawed procedural foundation, stands vulnerable to judicial nullification.

In light of these findings, the Court has resolved to set aside the impugned order, recognizing the imperative of upholding the principles of procedural fairness and equitable treatment before the law. This judicial intervention underscores the judiciary’s unwavering commitment to safeguarding the fundamental rights of litigants and ensuring the integrity of the legal process.

In light of the Court’s determination regarding the inadequacy of procedural fairness, the Writ Petition has been granted and the impugned order demanding tax and penalty, as delineated in Form GST MOV-09 dated 21.10.2022, stands nullified. In its stead, the respondent is instructed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, affording them the requisite opportunity to present their objections.

Following the submission of objections by the petitioner, the respondent is mandated to deliberate upon them judiciously and subsequently issue a comprehensive and elucidated order within a stipulated period of eight weeks from the receipt of the order copy. This directive underscores the paramount importance of affording litigants a fair and transparent adjudicative process, thereby upholding the sanctity of due process and procedural integrity.

Moreover, it is pertinent to note that no costs have been imposed in this matter, underscoring the Court’s commitment to equitable justice and ensuring that the legal process remains accessible and unencumbered by financial constraints.

As a corollary, all related miscellaneous petitions are deemed closed, thereby bringing a definitive resolution to the legal proceedings surrounding this contentious issue. This judicial pronouncement embodies the judiciary’s unwavering dedication to upholding the rule of law and ensuring the equitable dispensation of justice in all matters brought before it.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: