M/S Roadwings International Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned ex parte order of adjudication dated July 27, 2022, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the impugned order did not contain any reference to the petitioner's adjournment application dated July 12, 2022, nor did it indicate whether the application was considered or rejected. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order without delving into its merits. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioner or their authorized representative is given an opportunity of hearing. The adjudicating authority was directed to pass the fresh order within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The ratio decidendi is that an ex parte order passed without considering a party's prayer for adjournment, when such prayer is not recorded as considered or rejected, constitutes a violation of natural justice.

Facts

M/s. Roadwings International Private Limited, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order of adjudication dated July 27, 2022, passed by the adjudicating authority under the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that their prayer for adjournment, made via a letter dated July 12, 2022, was not considered by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order did not mention whether the adjournment application was considered or rejected. The revenue authorities, Union of India and CGST, were the respondents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order of adjudication dated July 27, 2022, passed by the adjudicating authority under the CGST Act is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for non-consideration of the petitioner's adjournment application dated July 12, 2022? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority violated the principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without considering their specific prayer for adjournment. They relied on the fact that their adjournment application was not mentioned in the impugned order, indicating it was not considered. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or the State regarding the petitioner's contention on the violation of natural justice or the adjournment application.