Abb Global Industries vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated March 19, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, was liable to be quashed. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that they were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Specifically, the Court noted that the petitioner's request for an extension of time to file a detailed reply was not considered before the impugned order was passed. The Court also acknowledged that the revenue's counsel was unable to controvert this fact. While the revenue argued that the deficiencies in the show cause notice were a matter of adjudication, the Court's primary concern was the denial of a fair hearing. Therefore, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner was granted permission to file detailed objections by December 14, 2020, and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to fix a date for personal hearing, preferably on December 21, 2020, or any further date deemed fit. The Court did not decide on the merits of the refund application itself.

Facts

The petitioner, ABB Global Industries and Services Pvt Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 19, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner argued that they were not given adequate opportunity to respond to a show cause notice dated March 2, 2020. They had requested a 15-day extension to file a detailed reply, as their legal consultants were preparing it. However, the impugned order was passed without considering this request. The petitioner also contended that the show cause notice did not specify the legal provision prohibiting a second refund application, especially when a previous similar application was sanctioned. The revenue, represented by Respondent No. 3, argued that the deficiencies in the show cause notice were a matter of adjudication and the petitioner could not raise these grounds as they did not participate in the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 19, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax is liable to be quashed for failure to grant the petitioner adequate opportunity to file a detailed reply and for personal hearing, contrary to principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the show cause notice dated March 2, 2020, was deficient for not citing the specific provision of law prohibiting the filing of a second refund application? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without considering their request for a 15-day extension to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice. They argued that the show cause notice was incomplete as it did not mention the specific legal provision that barred a second refund application. The petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution due to these procedural deficiencies. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue argued that the deficiencies in the show cause notice were a matter for adjudication and that the petitioner could not raise these grounds as they had not participated in the proceedings. However, the revenue's counsel could not controvert that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's request for additional time.