M/S. Madhu Construction Company vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not make a final determination on the merits of the case. Instead, it focused on procedural aspects. The Court noted the petitioner's contention that their reply was not considered and that the personal hearing notice was not served in time. The respondent acknowledged the issue with the timely service of the last notice. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within two weeks, which must include copies of the notices and proof of their service on the petitioner. This indicates that the Court is seeking to verify the procedural compliance before proceeding further. No specific findings on the merits or ratio decidendi were established at this stage. The operative direction was to file a counter affidavit with supporting documents.

Facts

The petitioner, through their counsel, submitted that their reply dated 16.02.2022 was not considered when the impugned order was passed. Furthermore, the notice for personal hearing was received by the petitioner after the scheduled date for the hearing had already passed. The respondent's counsel acknowledged that while personal hearing notices were issued, the last notice could not be served in a timely manner. Regarding the petitioner's reply, the respondent's counsel indicated a need to obtain specific instructions. The Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within two weeks, to be accompanied by copies of the notices and proof of their service on the petitioner. The matter was then listed for further hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's reply dated 16.02.2022 was considered by the authority while passing the impugned order, as required by principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the notice for personal hearing was served on the petitioner in accordance with procedural requirements, ensuring adequate opportunity to be heard? The petitioner argued that their reply was not considered and that the personal hearing notice was received after the hearing date, thus violating their right to a fair hearing. The respondent, while admitting that the last personal hearing notice was not served in time, stated that other notices were issued and sought instructions regarding the consideration of the petitioner's reply.