M/S. C M Mm Enterprise vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. C M MM Enterprise, has filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated December 5, 2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner alleges a violation of the principle of natural justice due to the denial of an opportunity for a personal hearing. The State, through its learned Additional Government Pleader, conceded that the departmental records do not indicate that a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner or that the petitioner's representation was considered before the impugned order was issued. This admission by the State led the Court to consider interference despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal remedy.

Held

The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated December 5, 2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, was in violation of the principle of natural justice. This violation occurred because the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity for a personal hearing, and their representation was not considered by the adjudicating authority. The Court acknowledged the State's submission that the departmental records did not indicate that these procedural safeguards were followed. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to interfere with the order, notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy of statutory appeal. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The authority is directed to pass a fresh speaking order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing and after considering their representation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated December 5, 2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice by not providing the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice as they were not afforded a personal hearing. They also contended that their representation was not considered before the order was passed. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the State fairly submitted that the departmental records do not show that an opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner or that the petitioner's representation was considered prior to the passing of the impugned adjudication order.