Group M Media INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary Ministry Of Commerce And Insutriy

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original dated December 31, 2023, should be quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the 3rd respondent for fresh adjudication. The Court reasoned that, similar to a previous order in Writ Petition No.6181 of 2024 and in light of CBIC Circular No.230/24/2024-GST dated September 10, 2024, it was appropriate to remand the matter. This would allow the petitioner to present the Circular and argue its applicability, and also provide the respondents an opportunity to contend otherwise. The Court emphasized that the 3rd respondent must provide all parties a full opportunity of hearing and consider all materials produced. The Court explicitly left all contentions on merits open, as it had not examined them. The revenue was directed to provide statements recorded under Section 70 of the SGST Act to the petitioner within two weeks, and the revenue would furnish a list of required documents to the petitioner within the same period. The petitioner agreed to supply the requested details thereafter. The rule was made absolute.

Facts

The petitioner, Group M Media India Private Limited, challenged an Order-in-Original dated December 31, 2023, passed by the 3rd respondent. Although an appeal was available, the petitioner filed a writ petition. The petitioner argued that many of their grounds and submissions were not considered in the impugned order, which largely reproduced another order without confronting the petitioner with it. The revenue contended that since the agreements were standard, the reasoning was acceptable. The Court noted a prior order in a similar writ petition and a CBIC Circular dated September 10, 2024, which was not available during the original adjudication. The petitioner also requested statements recorded under Section 70 of the SGST Act, which the revenue agreed to provide. The revenue also sought certain documents from the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated December 31, 2023, passed by the 3rd respondent, is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, considering the petitioner's submissions that their grounds were not considered and they were not confronted with a prior order relied upon by the adjudicating authority. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and proper adjudication). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent failed to consider several grounds raised by them and that the impugned order was a verbatim reproduction of another order, without the petitioner being confronted with it or given an opportunity to make submissions on it. They also highlighted the relevance of CBIC Circular No.230/24/2024-GST dated September 10, 2024, which was not available during the original adjudication. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that because the agreements were standard, there was nothing wrong with using the same reasoning as in the prior order. They also had an interpretation of the CBIC Circular.