S M Niryat PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court held that while the revenue argued the petitioner had prior opportunities, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity of hearing should be granted to the petitioner as a last chance. Consequently, the ex-parte impugned order dated August 22, 2023, was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The Court directed that if the petitioner fails to appear on the date fixed by the Appellate Authority, the authority would be free to pass an ex-parte order. The Appellate Authority was instructed to pass the fresh order within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original impugned order.
Facts
The petitioner, S M Niryat Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 22, 2023, passed by the Appellate Authority under the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice because the Appellate Authority denied their written request for an adjournment. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, argued that the petitioner had been granted opportunities on two prior occasions. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history primarily concerns the denial of adjournment by the Appellate Authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority violated the principle of natural justice by refusing to grant an adjournment to the petitioner, thereby not providing a proper opportunity of hearing as required under the CGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice due to the denial of their written request for an adjournment. They relied on the fundamental right to a fair hearing. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner had been given opportunities to be heard on two previous occasions. They did not explicitly name any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents in their argument regarding the denial of adjournment, but rather focused on the petitioner's prior opportunities.
Sections Cited
CGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 24678 OF 2023 22.11.2023
Sl no. 17
S M Niryat Private Limited Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M.
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Avra Mazumder, Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Mr. Samrat Das, Ms. Elina Das … For the Petitioner.
Mr. Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhradip Maity, Ms. Shatabdi Sen
… for the respondent
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2023 passed by the Appellate authority under the relevant provisions of CGST Act on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice by not granting adjournment to the petitioner in spite of written request. Mr. Dey, learned advocate in opposing this writ petition submits that twice on earlier occasion petitioner was given opportunity. Without going into the merit of the aforesaid impugned order, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that one more opportunitiy of hearing should be given to the petitioner as a last chance and accordingly the
2 aforesaid exparte impugned order dated 22nd August, 2023 is s
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.