M/S Balaji Trading Company vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Balaji Trading Company, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 30, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division Sirsa (respondent No. 4). The petitioner contended that they had submitted a reply dated September 23, 2024, to a show cause notice dated August 4, 2024, which was duly received by the respondent on September 25, 2024. However, the impugned order incorrectly stated that no reply was filed and no personal hearing was attended. The respondents' counsel conceded that the statement in the impugned order regarding the non-filing of the reply was incorrect and admitted that the reply filed by the petitioner had not been considered.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated January 30, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division Sirsa, was liable to be set aside. The Court noted the concession made by the respondents' counsel that the statement in the impugned order, asserting that the petitioner had neither appeared for a personal hearing nor submitted a reply, was factually incorrect. It was admitted that the reply filed by the petitioner on September 25, 2024, had not been considered by the competent authority. Consequently, the Court found that the order was passed without due consideration of the petitioner's submissions. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without considering a duly filed reply and incorrectly recording the absence of such a reply violates principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration after taking into account the petitioner's reply and affording them an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated January 30, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division Sirsa, is liable to be set aside on the grounds that it erroneously recorded that the petitioner had neither appeared for a personal hearing nor submitted a reply to the show cause notice, despite the petitioner having filed a reply and the respondents admitting this fact? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice as it failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and incorrectly stated that no reply was filed or personal hearing attended. They relied on the fact that their reply was duly received by the respondent. Respondents' Contention: The respondents' counsel conceded that the impugned order incorrectly stated that no reply was filed and admitted that the petitioner's reply had not been considered. They agreed that the matter should be remanded.