Page 91 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] K.C. PURUSHOTHAMAN v. TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPN. LTD. 601
11. This court in Akhil Krishan Maggu v. Deputy Director and Others,
CWP No. 24195/2019, vide Order dated 15-11-2019 [2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 516 (P &
H)] has dealt at length with question of arrest under Section 69 read with [Sec-
tion] 132 of CGST Act, 2017 during the pendency of investigation. In the present
case, investigation was initiated in March, 2018 and Directors of the Petitioner
have already put their appearance and tendered their statements. Petitioner is a
running unit and its record was either seized or subsequently submitted to Re-
spondent, thus we are sanguine of the fact that Respondent shall proceed against
the Petitioner in accordance with our judgment dated 15-11-2019 in the case of
Akhil Krishan Maggu v. Deputy Director and Others, CWP No. 24195/2019.
12. In the backdrop of above, we are of the opinion that impugned or-
der dated 10-7-2019 (Annexure P-8) and order, dated 12-9-2019 (Annexure P-10) in
the teeth of intent and purpose of Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 is bad and pre-
sent petition deserves to succeed and accordingly allowed. The impugned orders
dated 10-7-2019 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 12-9-2019 (Annexure P-10) are
hereby quashed and set aside.
_______
2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 601 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
K.C. PURUSHOTHAMAN

Versus
TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPN. LTD.
W.P. No. 957 of 2020 and W.M.P. No. 1166 of 2020, decided on 20-1-2020
Show Cause Notice - Bias - Pre-judging issue - Although communica-
tion sent by Department has been nomenclatured as show cause notice, it is
directing petitioner to pay penalty along with GST within 7 days failing which
he would be removed from service - Clearly officer issuing said communica-
tion has already pre-determined action to be taken without putting petitioner
to notice and considering his explanation - Accordingly, impugned SCN set
aside - However, Department at liberty to issue fresh SCN setting out facts in
detail and seek petitioner’s explanation/objection on it - Suitable decision be
taken thereafter by giving hearing opportunity to petitioner - Section 73 of
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India.
[paras 8, 9, 10]
Petition allowed
CASE CITED
C. Sakthivelmurgan v. Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. — W.P. No. 34379 of 2019,
decided on 10-12-2019 by Madras High Court — Relied on ............................................ [Paras 4, 5, 9]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri V. Ajay Khose, for the Petitioner.
Shri Sathish Kumar, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - On the consent given by either side, the present writ petition
has been taken up for final hearing.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceed-
ings of the second respondent dated 26-12-2019.
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  187