M/S Yk Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Y.K. Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without granting an opportunity of being heard. The respondent, through learned counsel, stated that a fresh order would be passed after hearing the petitioner. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the dismissal of an appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) due to delay, leading to the present writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST, was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, acknowledging that the order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court accepted this submission. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate authority must provide an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing an order, especially when dismissing an appeal on procedural grounds like delay. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority on 06.02.2025. The Appellate Authority was further directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST, is liable to be set aside for being passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as per principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order, which dismissed their appeal on the ground of delay, was passed without affording them a proper hearing. This violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by learned counsel, did not contest the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of hearing. Instead, they made a statement that a fresh order would be passed after hearing the petitioner. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by either party in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Not specified in the judgment
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-2050-202
IN T
M/s Y.K.Enterp
Union of India a
CORAM : HON HO
Present: Mr. R
Mr. S
Ms.
SUDEEPTI SH
The 17.12.2024 pas Panchkula, Com dismissed on the 2. Lea dated 17.12.202
Per respondent No Panchkula, Com hearing the petit
We 25 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-
CW
De
prises
VERSUS and Others
N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN N’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE Rishab Singla, Advocate for the Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Cou Geetika Sharma, Advocate, for r -.-
HARMA, J.
e challenge in the present wr ssed by the Additional Comm mmissionerate, whereby the ap e ground of delay. arned counsel for the petitioner 24 is passed without giving any o r contra, learned counsel for .2 i.e. the Additional Comm mmissionerate, states that a fr tioner. e have heard learned counsel for -1- JAB AND HARYANA ARH WP-2050-2025 (O&M) cided on 27.01.2025
....Petitioner
....Respondents PALLI EEPTI SHARMA petitioner. unsel, with respondent No.2 –CGST. rit petition is to the order da missioner (Appeals), Central G ppeal filed by the petitioner w contends that the impugned or opportunity of being heard. respondent, on instructions fr missioner (Appeals), Central G resh order would be passed a the parties.
ated GST was rder rom GST fter TRIPTI SAINI 2025.01.29 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-2050-202
In v order dated 17.1 Appellate Auth hearing the pe expeditiously, p copy of this orde
Dis
Pen
(ARUN PAL JUDGE
January 27, 202 tripti
Whe
Whe
25 (O&M) view of the statement made by l 12.2024 is set aside. The petition hority on 06.02.2025. The Ap etitioner would pass a fresh preferably within a period of six er. sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st LLI)
5
ether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking ether reportable
: Yes -2- learned counsel for respondent, ner is directed to appear before ppellate Authority, thereafter, a order in accordance with l x weeks from the date of receipt tand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
the the fter aw, t of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.01.29 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.