M/S. Srikant Gautam, Bbsr vs. Chief Commnr. CGST And Central Excise, Bbsr

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

Heard Ms. Itishree Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the authority under Sections 84 and 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 vide Annexure 3 respectively and to issue direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to participate in the proceeding of the appeal, which has been rejected without giving opportunity of hearing to it.

Ms. Itishree Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that a demand notice was issued against the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment order under Annexure-1 dated 08.02.2024 for the Financial Year 2016-17. Challenging the demand notice issued by the authority though the petitioner preferred appeal, but, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order impugned dated 31.05.2024 has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner may be granted liberty to participate in the hearing in the appeal preferred by it.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that the petitioner had not deposited the statutory deposit of 7.5% of tax while preferring the appeal and, therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was defective. Thereby, the authority is well justified in passing the order impugned, which does not warrant interference of this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner preferred appeal, but, however, without complying the requirement of law by depositing 7.5% of the tax demanded. In that view of the matter, the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the authority under Sections 84 and 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 vide Annexure-3 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh by passing appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, subject to its depositing of 7.5% of the tax demanded.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.