TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition Dismissed: Fair Hearing Offered, COVID-19 Considered</h1> <h3>MATTRESS MASTERS AND FURNISHINGS Versus ASSTT. COMMR., CENTRAL TAX & C. EX., KOZHIKODE</h3> MATTRESS MASTERS AND FURNISHINGS Versus ASSTT. COMMR., CENTRAL TAX & C. EX., KOZHIKODE - 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 29 (Ker.) Issues:1. Failure to attend personal hearing due to COVID-19 pandemic.2. Allegation of non-compliance with principles of natural justice.3. Request for dropping penal proceedings against the firm.Analysis:1. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the show cause notice (Ext.P1) and the subsequent reply (Ext.P2), emphasizing that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the partners of the petitioner firm were unable to travel for the personal hearing scheduled at Kozhikode. The petitioner's request for adjournment was misinterpreted by the respondents, leading to the contention that the impugned order should be set aside for non-compliance with natural justice principles.2. Upon examination, it was revealed that the petitioner had been issued a notice of hearing on 11-11-2020 (Ext.P4) for a personal hearing on 24-11-2020. The petitioner's response in communication at Ext.P5 expressed reluctance to attend the personal hearing due to the pandemic and requested the authority to drop penal proceedings against the firm. The respondent's decision, as reflected in the impugned order (Ext.P6), indicated that the petitioner declined the opportunity for personal hearing, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was not in violation of natural justice principles and was appealable.3. The respondent's observations in the impugned order highlighted that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for personal hearing, which were not utilized. The petitioner's communication expressing disinterest in attending the hearing and requesting the dropping of proceedings against the firm further supported the respondent's decision. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner was afforded the opportunity for personal hearing, which was declined, and therefore, the impugned order did not contravene natural justice principles. As a result, the writ petition was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
