M/S Kca Infrastructure Through Its Proprietor Sh Sonu Ahuja vs. Learned Commissioner Adjudication Central Tax CGST Delhi East

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s KCA Infrastructure, challenged an order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Learned Commissioner Adjudication, Central Tax CGST Delhi East. This order disposed of Show Cause Notices dated 24.10.2018 and 14.02.2020. The Petitioner contended that no effective opportunity for a personal hearing was granted. They claimed to have appeared on 04.01.2021 and filed written submissions, but later learned the officer had changed. Subsequent notices for hearings on 07.11.2023 and 22.11.2023 were allegedly not received or were requested to be deferred. A notice dated 11.12.2023 fixed a hearing for 18.11.2023, which the Petitioner pointed out as an incorrect date. The impugned order stated a hearing was held on 18.12.2023, which the Petitioner claimed was contradicted by the notice.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner was prejudiced due to the lack of proper notice for the hearing dated 18.12.2023, which was relied upon by the Respondent to decide the case ex-parte. The Court noted that the notice dated 11.12.2023, which was the only evidence of fixing a hearing date, contained a typographical error showing 18.11.2023 and not 18.12.2023. The Respondent conceded that no notice for 18.12.2023 was sent or delivered to the Petitioner, and no office noting for this date was produced. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.12.2023, which stated that the Petitioner failed to appear for a hearing on 18.12.2023 and was decided ex-parte, was found to be unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the proper Officer to re-adjudicate the show cause notice. The Petitioner was directed to appear before the proper Officer on 30.04.2024 at 3:00 pm. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the contentions of either party.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner was afforded an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing as per principles of natural justice, concerning the impugned order dated 28.12.2023? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that no effective notice for personal hearing was provided for crucial dates, leading to prejudice. They highlighted that the notice dated 11.12.2023 incorrectly mentioned 18.11.2023 as the hearing date, contradicting the impugned order's assertion of a hearing on 18.12.2023. They relied on N.K. Prasada Vs. Government of India & Ors. to argue that principles of natural justice require showing prejudice. Respondent's arguments: The Respondent's counter-affidavit confirmed notices were sent for various dates. They admitted a clerical mistake in the notice dated 11.12.2023, where 18.11.2023 was printed instead of 18.12.2023. The Respondent's counsel stated no office noting fixing the 18.12.2023 date was brought to their notice.