Cbm Industries PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, Audit-Ii,Delhi

Facts

The Petitioner, CBM Industries Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated February 2, 2021, passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Audit-II, Delhi. The Petitioner's grievance was that the order was passed in contravention of revised guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) dated August 21, 2020, which mandated personal hearing via video conferencing. The Petitioner contended that no such opportunity was provided, leading to an ex parte order. The Respondent argued that a personal hearing was not granted because the request was made by an advocate who had not filed a vakalatnama. The Petitioner presented evidence, including screenshots of the respondent's web portal, showing that their email address was available with the revenue. The matter concerned assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016.

Held

The Court held that the order-in-original dated February 2, 2021, passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services (CGST), Audit-II, Delhi, was liable to be set aside due to the non-grant of a mandatory personal hearing to the petitioner. The Court noted that the respondent's contention regarding the absence of a vakalatnama was not a sufficient reason to deny the mandatory hearing, especially when the petitioner's email address was available with the revenue, as evidenced by screenshots. The Court found that the petitioner's grievance that the order was passed ex parte without a proper opportunity of hearing was valid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The Court directed the petitioner's Authorized Representative to appear before the said officer on May 9, 2022, at 11 am for a hearing. The officer was given the liberty to grant the hearing via video conferencing and was instructed to communicate a fresh date and time via email if the scheduled date was inconvenient. The Court also directed the registry to upload the screenshot of the respondent's web portal showing the petitioner's email address.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order-in-original dated February 2, 2021, passed by the Commissioner of CGST, Audit-II, Delhi, is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting a personal hearing to the petitioner as per the CBIC guidelines dated August 21, 2020? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the mandatory personal hearing requirement stipulated in the CBIC's revised guidelines dated August 21, 2020. They contended that no opportunity for personal hearing, particularly via video conferencing as specified in the guidelines, was provided, rendering the order ex parte and invalid. They relied on the fact that their email address was available with the respondent, which could have been used to intimate them about the hearing. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent contended that a fresh opportunity for personal hearing could not be granted as an opportunity had been given earlier. They further argued that the request for personal hearing was made by an advocate who had not filed a vakalatnama, and therefore, the respondent could not recognize the request. The respondent also stated that personal hearing, though mandatory, was not given as the request was not properly made.