Sidhivinayak Chemtech Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Meerut And Ors. & Anr.

Held

The Court noted the conflicting claims regarding the issuance and receipt of the personal hearing notice. To resolve this controversy and ensure a fair hearing, the Court directed the authorized representative of the petitioner to appear before the concerned statutory authority on November 25, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. The Court further mandated that the statutory authority would hear the petitioner's authorized representative and thereafter pass a speaking order concerning the objections raised by the petitioner. A copy of this speaking order was to be furnished to the petitioner within two days of its passing. The Court also clarified that if the order passed by the statutory authority was adverse to the petitioner's interest, the petitioner would have the liberty to challenge it in accordance with the law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court provided a clear procedural path forward.

Facts

The petitioner, Sidhivinayak Chemtech Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a provisional attachment order dated September 1, 2022, passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Meerut. The petitioner contended that despite filing objections in the prescribed form (GST DRC-22A) to the provisional attachment order, these objections had not been decided. The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner, CGST, argued that notices for personal hearing were issued on September 28, 2022, for a hearing on October 4, 2022, but the petitioner's authorized representative did not attend. The petitioner denied receiving any such notice. To resolve the dispute, both parties agreed to a direction for the petitioner's representative to appear before the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the objections filed by the petitioner against the provisional attachment order dated September 1, 2022, have been decided by the concerned statutory authority, as required under the relevant provisions of the GST law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their objections, filed in the prescribed form GST DRC-22A, had not been decided by the revenue authorities, despite the passage of time. They asserted that the statutory process had not been followed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that notices for personal hearing were issued on September 28, 2022, for a hearing scheduled on October 4, 2022. However, they claimed that the petitioner's authorized representative failed to attend the hearing. The revenue did not explicitly rely on any specific provision, circular, or precedent in this regard, but their argument was based on the petitioner's alleged non-appearance.