Rsvcpl-Car (Jv) vs. The Commissioner Of Customs And Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the approach of the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal without granting an opportunity of personal hearing was in breach of the statutory provision under Section 107(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the language of Section 107(8), using the word "shall," makes the opportunity of hearing mandatory. While the Court did not comment on the merits of the petitioner's plea for condonation of delay, it found that the infraction of the statutory procedure was sufficient grounds to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that the impugned Order-In-Appeal was set aside solely on account of the procedural infraction.

Facts

The petitioner, RSVCPL-CAR (JV), filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the respondent authorities concerning GST. The primary challenge was to an Order-in-Original dated 22.11.2024, a Summary of Order dated 03.01.2025, and another Order-in-Original dated 19.09.2025. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed without jurisdiction, were barred by limitation, and were void ab initio. A key grievance was the alleged denial of a personal hearing, which the petitioner argued was mandatory under Section 118 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order-in-appeal itself noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 203 days and that the appellate authority could only condone a delay of one month beyond the stipulated period. The appellate authority relied on a CESTAT decision in Shambhu Synthetics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs, which in turn relied on a Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Appeal, dated 22.11.2024, passed by the respondent No.1, is without jurisdiction, contrary to law, and barred by limitation, and consequently void ab initio? 2. Whether the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner, in contravention of Section 107(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, renders the impugned Order-in-Appeal liable to be set aside? The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without jurisdiction and were barred by limitation. They specifically contended that the denial of a personal hearing violated Section 107(8) of the Act, making the appellate authority's action procedurally flawed and the consequent order liable to be set aside. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding these issues.