BharatTaxGST

M/S Pinky Marbles vs. Director General Of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence

Original PDF →
CW/4297/2024HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02023248202410 May 2024Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,SHUBHA MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pinky Marbles, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.09.2023. The petitioner contended that they were not provided an adequate opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with Section 75(5) of the CGST Act. The case was initially scheduled for hearing on 29.08.2023, then adjourned to 20.09.2023 at the petitioner's request. It was further adjourned to 27.09.2023. Before the 27.09.2023 hearing, the petitioner sent a request for adjournment to November 2023 via a letter dated 20.09.2023, which was received by the respondent on 26.09.2023. Despite this, the respondent passed the impugned order on 29.09.2023.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2023. The Court found that while the case was listed for hearing on 29.08.2023, adjourned to 20.09.2023, and then to 27.09.2023, a request for adjournment was received by the respondent on 26.09.2023. The Court held that the authority ought to have passed some order on this request letter on 27.09.2023. Since no order was passed on the request letter and the matter was kept for order without addressing the request, the Court deemed it proper to allow the petition. The ratio decidendi is that a request for adjournment, if received by the authority before the scheduled hearing, must be addressed by passing an order thereon, and proceeding to pass an adverse order without doing so violates the principles of natural justice and the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing. The respondents are directed to re-adjudicate the matter after giving a last opportunity of personal hearing and then pass a fresh speaking order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, leading to the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 being invalid? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had made a request for adjournment on 20.09.2023, received by the respondent on 26.09.2023, prior to the scheduled hearing on 27.09.2023. They contended that the respondent ought to have passed an order on this request before proceeding to pass the impugned order. They also argued that the respondent passed the order on 29.09.2023 instead of granting a third adjournment, which they believed was implicitly requested. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that a third opportunity for hearing was provided to the petitioner on 27.09.2023, and since the petitioner did not appear, the order was passed. They further argued that it is not mandatory to grant three adjournments in all cases.

Sections Cited

Section 75(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4297/2024 M/s Pinky Marbles, Having Its Principal Place Of Address Sawar, Ajmer, Rajasthan (305-407) Through Its Proprietor Shri Ghanshyam Tak S/o Shri Bodu Ram Tak, Resident Of Nai Basti, Naya Ghar, Gulab Bari, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Director General Of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, C-62, Sarojini Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (302-001) 2. Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax Division-K, Ajmer, Central Revenue Building, Opposite Sessions Court, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan (305-001) 3. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Room No. 66-A, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, 1St Floor, Main Building, Gate 2, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Agarwal with Mr. Mayank Taparia through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG with Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari Mr. Kinshuk Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order 10/05/2024

1.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 29.09.2023, with a limited prayer that opportunity of

(2 of 3) [CW-4297/2024] hearing was not provided to the petitioner in accordance with Section 75(5) of CGST Act.

2.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially the matter was fixed on 29.08.2023 for personal hearing. On that date, on request of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 20.09.2023, thereafter, the matter was adjourned for personal hearing on 27.09.2023. Prior to that date, petitioner had sent a request for adjourning the case to November, 2023 vide letter dated 20.09.2023 which was received by the respondent on 26.09.2023. It is also contended that instead of giving third adjournment, respondent had passed the impugned order on 29.09.2023 under Section 75(5) of CGST Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that third opportunity was given to the petitioner and he did not appear on 27.09.2023, hence, the order was passed on 29.09.2023. It is also contended that it is not mandatory that in all matters, three adjournments have to be given.

4.

We have considered the contentions.

5.

A limited prayer made before the Court is for quashing of the order dated 29.09.2023 and for affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the case was listed for hearing on 29.08.2023 on that date, time was sought and the matter was posted on 20.09.2023. Thereafter, as no one appeared on 20.09.2023, the matter was adjourned to 27.09.2023. A request letter was received by the respondent on 26.09.2023, however, since the request letter was received on 26.09.2023, the authority ought to have passed some order on the request letter on 27.09.2023. (3 of 3) [CW-4297/2024]

6.

We are of the considered view that some order ought to have been passed on the request letter received by the respondent, however, without passing any order on the request letter, the matter was kept for order on 27.09.2023, hence, we deem it proper to allow the writ petition.

7.

Civil Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 is quashed and set aside.

8.

Respondents are directed to re-adjudicate the matter after giving last opportunity of personal hearing and then pass fresh speaking order in accordance with law. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J HEENA/7

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.