Ranu Banerjee vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr
Facts
The petitioner, Smt. Ranu Banerjee, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated April 11, 2023, passed by the CGST & CX Authority. The primary ground for challenge was the alleged violation of principles of natural justice due to the denial of a personal hearing. The petitioner sought an opportunity for a personal hearing. The revenue, represented by the DGGI & CGST & CX Authority and the Union of India, contested this. The tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the adjudication order and the subsequent filing of the writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity for a personal hearing, as indicated in paragraph 3 of the adjudication order. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority could not be faulted for passing the order on this ground. The Court also noted that the impugned order is appealable under the statute. Consequently, without delving into the merits of the adjudication order, the Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court extended the time for the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority by three weeks. If the appeal is filed within this stipulated period, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits, without raising the issue of limitation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the Adjudicating Authority in passing the impugned adjudication order dated April 11, 2023, by allegedly denying the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, thereby contravening the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, and relevant rules concerning fair procedure? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by not providing a proper opportunity for a personal hearing. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner was indeed provided with an opportunity for a personal hearing, and it was not a case where the petitioner sought any adjournment on the date fixed for the hearing. The revenue relied on paragraph 3 of the adjudication order to support this.
Sections Cited
CGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 ks WPA 16591 of 2023 sl. 11 Smt. Ranu Banerjee Vs Union of India & Ors.
Mrs. Mousumi Banerjee … For the Petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Mr. Abhradip Maity … For the DGGI & CGST & CX Authority.
Mr. Tilak Mitra … For the UOI.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned adjudication order dated 11th April, 2023, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice by making prayer for providing opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing.
On perusal of the record I find that the opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner and it is not a case where even any adjournment was asked for by the petitioner on the date of personal hearing and particularly from paragraph 3 of the of the aforesaid adjudication order it appears that petitioner was in fact given opportunity of personal hearing and as such the Adjudicating Authority cannot be faulted in passing the o
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.