Case Details: Krishnan Rajagopal vs. Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai (2026) 39 Centax 38 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
- Shri B. Sathish Sundar, for the Appellant.
- Shri Sai Srujan Tayi, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee challenged an order in original passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act, whereby the demand of tax was confirmed pursuant to a show cause notice. The authorised representative had attended the personal hearing and filed documents in response to the notice. Upon retirement of the concerned officer, a fresh hearing was fixed; however, the petitioner did not appear. The impugned order recorded non-response and confirmed the demand without referring to the earlier personal hearing or documents submitted. No statutory appeal was filed within the prescribed period, and the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction alleging violation of principles of natural justice on account of non-consideration of reply and materials already placed on record. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that a reading of the impugned order indicated no reference to the personal hearing or the documents filed, nor any consideration of the issues raised. It held that such non-consideration vitiated the adjudication as it amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice. Following similar matters and considering the circumstances recorded, the Court held that remand was warranted. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits subject to the deposit of 50% of the disputed tax in cash, and the impugned order was directed to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice to enable a fresh reply.
