Shashank Garg vs. Additional Joint Commissioner Adjudication And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Shashank Garg, challenged an order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority-CGST, Panchkula. The petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority decided the issue of jurisdiction without providing a personal hearing, despite a prior order dated 18.09.2023 which had fixed a hearing. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court in CWP No.23297 of 2023, which was disposed of based on the 18.09.2023 order. The revenue, represented by Mr. Sourabh Goel, conceded that the order dated 10.01.2024 could be set aside as no specific date for hearing was fixed after 18.09.2023, although the earlier order mentioned the petitioner would be informed in due course.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority-CGST, Panchkula. The Court accepted the concession made by the revenue's counsel that the order was flawed due to the absence of a proper personal hearing. The reasoning was that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to comply with the procedural requirement of providing a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, despite the earlier order dated 18.09.2023 indicating such a hearing would take place. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudicating authority must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing a personal hearing when required, and failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. The operative direction was that the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a fresh order after making due compliance with the earlier order dated 18.09.2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in deciding the issue of jurisdiction without affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the directions in the order dated 18.09.2023? The petitioner argued that the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 10.01.2024 was unsustainable as it failed to provide a personal hearing, which was a mandatory procedural requirement. The petitioner relied on the earlier order dated 18.09.2023, which implicitly or explicitly suggested a further hearing. The revenue, through Mr. Sourabh Goel, conceded that the order dated 10.01.2024 was liable to be set aside because no specific date for hearing was fixed after 18.09.2023, despite the earlier order stating that the petitioner would be informed in due course. The revenue did not advance any arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of personal hearing.