E-mails or written submissions is sufficient opportunity of hearing provided during pandemic: HC

Case Details: Sai Rubber Works v. State of Madhya Pradesh - [2022] 136 taxmann.com 173 (Madhya Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak, JJ.
  • S.K. Shrivastava, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. 
  • M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, ld. Addl. Adv. General for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner-manufacturer was engaged in supply of goods to various states. The tax invoice was erroneously generated in name of wrong unit and there was error in e-way bill. The goods and vehicle were detained on ground as place of supply mentioned was different from actual place of receiver. The department alleged suppression of sales and seized goods and vehicle. The appeal was filed but it was dismissed on delay as well as on merits. It filed writ petition and submitted that error which petitioner done at the time of generation of e-way bill was procedural mistake and it was done without fraudulent intent or gross negligence. It also submitted that the appellate authority did not provide any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass the impugned order in violation of principle of natural justice.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court observed that the pre-decisional hearing was afforded to petitioner and written submission was filed for perusal and record purpose. The right to represent in situation of COVID-19 pandemic was given by way of e-mails/written submissions. Since, the opportunity of hearing in times of COVID-19 was complied with and the conclusion on tax evasion was reached after considering pleadings and submissions raised by petitioner, it should be considered that order was passed after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing. Thus, it would not be considered as suitable case to invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court. Therefore, the petition was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Carborundum Universal Ltd. v. CBDT 1989 Supp (2) SCC 462 (para 20)
  • Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT [2008] 169 Taxman 328/300 ITR 403 (SC) (para 20)
  • Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Dy. CCE [2015] 58 taxmann.com 90/51 GST 197 (SC) (para 21).