M/S Sachdeva Colleges LTD. Through Its Director Soam Sachdeva vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The Court held that the Authority for Advance Ruling was bound by the mandatory provision of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, specifically the second proviso, which states that no application shall be rejected unless an opportunity of hearing has been given to the applicant. The Court found that the petitioner's counsel's presence was duly recorded in the Entry Dispatch Register on 28.01.2020, which was the date the Authority claimed the petitioner did not appear. This evidence contradicted the Authority's basis for rejecting the application. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for advance ruling was set aside for failing to provide the mandatory opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded back to the Authority for passing a speaking order after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's counsel. The parties were directed to appear before the Authority on 31.03.2021.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sachdeva Colleges Ltd., filed an application under Section 97 of the CGST Act before the Haryana Authority for Advance Ruling. The Authority rejected the application via an order dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure P-4), citing the petitioner's non-appearance on 09.01.2020 and 28.01.2020. The petitioner contended that their counsel's presence was marked in the Entry Despatch Register on 28.01.2020, and therefore, the application could not have been rejected without affording an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was dispatched on 28.08.2020, despite being passed on 28.01.2020. The petitioner challenged this rejection in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Authority for Advance Ruling was bound to provide an opportunity of hearing before rejecting an application under Section 97 of the CGST Act, as mandated by Section 98(2) read with the second proviso thereto? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, particularly the second proviso, mandates that no application shall be rejected unless an opportunity of hearing has been given. They asserted that their counsel's presence was duly recorded in the Entry Despatch Register on 28.01.2020, contradicting the Authority's finding of non-appearance. Therefore, the rejection order was passed in violation of the mandatory procedural requirement of providing a hearing. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contended that the applicant was called upon to appear on multiple dates, including 09.01.2020 and 28.01.2020, but failed to appear. They also noted that the Authority was bound to pronounce a ruling within 90 days as per Section 98(6) of the CGST Act, implying no further opportunity could be granted. However, the judgment primarily focuses on the petitioner's argument regarding the opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 97, Section 98(2), Section 98(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.118 CWP-5605-2021 Date of Decision: 10.03.2021 M/S SACHDEVA COLLEGES LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SOAM SACHDEVA ... Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Babbar, Advocate, and Mr. Surender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that once an application under Section 97 of the CGST Act is made, then as per Section 98 (2) of the above said Act, it was mandatory for the Authorities to pass an order after giving an opportunity of hearing while rejecting the above said application, at the stage of admission itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record copy of the affidavit of the counsel, who had appeared before the authority (Annexure P-6), where it has been stated that when the application was made, the presence of the concerned counsel was not marked on 28.01.2020. However, the presence has been recorded in the Entry Despatch Register at Serial No.08 on 28.01.2020. Since the presence is acknowledged by the respondent
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.