Samrat Chatterjee vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Samrat Chatterjee, challenged an adjudication order dated December 1, 2023, and its corrigendum dated December 20, 2023, passed by the adjudicating authority at Purulia for the period 2016-17. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the show-cause notice cum demand was issued by the adjudicating authority at Malda, a notice of hearing was issued by the authority at Siliguri, and the ex parte adjudication order was passed by the authority at Purulia without issuing any fresh notice of hearing or informing the petitioner about the transfer of jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that this procedural irregularity led to the impugned order being passed without proper intimation or opportunity to be heard.

Held

The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated December 1, 2023, and its corrigendum dated December 20, 2023, were liable to be set aside specifically on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted the peculiar and exceptional facts and circumstances of the case, including the procedural irregularities in the issuance of notices and the transfer of jurisdiction without proper intimation to the petitioner. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority at Purulia. The authority was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after providing the petitioner or their authorized representative an opportunity of hearing within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. No unnecessary adjournments were to be granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated December 1, 2023, and its corrigendum dated December 20, 2023, passed by the adjudicating authority at Purulia, are liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the issuance of notices and transfer of jurisdiction, under the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the principles of natural justice were violated because the show-cause notice was issued by one authority (Malda), the notice of hearing by another (Siliguri), and the final ex parte adjudication order was passed by a third authority (Purulia) without any intimation of the transfer of jurisdiction or a fresh notice of hearing. This lack of proper communication and opportunity to be heard rendered the order invalid. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or CGST authority.