M/S.Art-E Mide Construction PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Art-e-Mide Construction Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 26, 2022, passed by the Commissioner of CGST. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, as no adequate opportunity of hearing was provided. The petitioner submitted that despite providing responses to notices of hearing, these were not considered before the adjudication order was issued. The respondent CGST Authority argued that any responses submitted were not to the appropriate authority and that the adjudication order did not rely on any undisclosed documents.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order was passed ex parte and that the principle of natural justice was violated due to the lack of an effective opportunity of hearing. The Court reasoned that an opportunity for personal hearing should be granted to the petitioner or their authorized representative. Furthermore, the petitioner should be given access to documents the respondent authority intends to rely upon. If, after hearing, the petitioner can justify withdrawing the order, the respondent authority shall do so. If not, the respondent authority must provide detailed reasons for retaining the order. The Court also directed the return of any documents not relied upon within two weeks. The petitioner is entitled to raise all points raised in the writ petition during the hearing. The entire process is to be concluded within eight weeks.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated December 26, 2022, passed by the Commissioner of CGST, is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice, specifically the lack of an effective opportunity of hearing for the petitioner? The petitioner argued that they were denied a proper hearing, and their responses to notices were ignored. They relied on supplementary affidavits to demonstrate their attempts to engage with the authorities. The respondent CGST Authority contended that any submissions made by the petitioner were not directed to the correct authority and that the adjudication order was based on documents to which the petitioner had access.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies adjudication proceedings under GST law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 ks WPA 3952 of 2023 sl. 10 M/s. Art-e-Mide Construction Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.
Mr. P.K. Das, Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, … For the Petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Maiti, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the Respondents.
Mr. Pradyat Saha … For the UOI.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 26th December, 2022, being Annexure P-1 to the writ petition passed by the Commissioner of CGST concerned, on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice by contending that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the aforesaid impugned adjudication order. In support of his contention Mr.
Das, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has annexed several documents by way of supplementary affidavit to show that from time to time, against the notices of hearing, petitioner has given response but the same were not taken into consideration before passing the aforesaid impu
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.