Ozone Granites (P) LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Ozone Granites (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order. The petitioner contended that the order violated the principles of natural justice. The impugned order, passed by the assessing authority, noted that the petitioner had filed a petition on March 26, 2018, seeking to include HSD Oil in their CST Certificate and permission to purchase it against a 'C' Form. A personal hearing was afforded on April 11, 2018, where an authorized representative appeared and presented arguments. The assessing authority stated that the representative was heard in detail, and the request, records, Act, and Rules were meticulously perused. Despite this, the petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment (Ext.P7).

Held

The Court held that the impugned order (Ext.P6) does not suffer from the vice of violating the principles of natural justice. The assessing authority's observation within the order indicated that a personal hearing was afforded, the petitioner's representative appeared, presented arguments, and the authority heard them in detail and perused the records, Act, and Rules. Regarding the petitioner's contention that the issue was covered by a Division Bench judgment (Ext.P7), the Court observed that if this were to be accepted, Ext.P7 would be a precedent that the petitioner could rely on in a statutory appeal. The Court stated that the petitioner could take advantage of Ext.P7 before the appellate forum if it had relevance to the facts of the case. The Court did not decide the merits of the case or the applicability of Ext.P7, but rather closed the writ petition with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order (Ext.P6) violates the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the opportunity of being heard, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated, implying that the hearing afforded was inadequate or that the decision did not reflect a proper consideration of their submissions. They also argued that the issue raised in the writ petition was squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment (Ext.P7), suggesting that the assessing authority should have followed this precedent. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue, represented by the Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the assessing authority's observation within the impugned order suggests that a hearing was conducted, and the petitioner's representative's arguments were heard and records perused. The Court's observation that the order does not suffer from the vice of violating principles of natural justice indicates the Revenue's implicit stance that due process was followed.