Sri Animesh Brahma vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated January 19, 2022. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the Show-Cause-Notice dated December 18, 2020, was not served upon him, and he was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court acknowledged that while the impugned order reflected the allegations from the show-cause notice, it did not explicitly mention its service. The Court found it appropriate to direct a de novo adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without proper service of the show-cause notice and without affording a personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. The operative direction was for the petitioner to approach the Additional Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Guwahati, on September 5, 2023, at 11 a.m., to receive a copy of the Show-Cause-Notice dated December 18, 2020. The Additional Commissioner was directed to serve the copy, take due receipt, fix a date for the petitioner's reply, and notify dates for personal hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Animesh Brahma, challenged an Order-in-Original No. 35/Addl.Commr./ST/GHY/2021-2022 dated January 19, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Guwahati. The primary grounds for challenge were that the order was passed without serving the Show-Cause-Notice dated December 18, 2020, to the petitioner and without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The impugned order reflected the allegations from the show-cause notice but did not mention its service, only noting the petitioner's failure to submit a reply. The matter was taken up at the motion stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated January 19, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Guwahati, is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-service of the Show-Cause-Notice dated December 18, 2020, to the petitioner, thus violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity of personal hearing before the passing of the Order-in-Original dated January 19, 2022? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without proper service of the Show-Cause-Notice and without affording a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the GST Department submitted that issuing a notice would only delay adjudication. He stated that the respondent authorities were not adverse to furnishing a copy of the Show-Cause-Notice to the petitioner if the Court passed appropriate directions, to bring the proceedings to a logical conclusion.