Taluk Sonam vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Taluk Sonam, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated April 28, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX. This order confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 61,51,878/- along with interest and penalty under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed ex parte without providing an opportunity of being heard, despite the petitioner having filed a reply and attended a personal hearing. The respondents, through their learned standing counsel, agreed to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated April 28, 2022. The Court accepted the submission of the learned standing counsel for the respondents, who agreed to remand the matter back to the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX. The Court directed that the petitioner shall submit a fresh show-cause reply within 30 days from the date of the order, along with all supporting documents. Upon receipt of the reply and documents, the competent authority is to provide a date for personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass a fresh Order-in-Original in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated that it had not entered into the merits of the case and that the order was not intended to be cited as a precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated April 28, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, was liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that they had filed a show-cause reply and attended the personal hearing, and thus the ex parte adjudication was erroneous. The revenue did not contest this point, agreeing to a remand. 2. Whether the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, as proposed by the respondents. The respondents, through their standing counsel, submitted that they had instructions to agree to a remand, allowing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and necessary documents.