M/S Maa Sharda Tour And Travel , Lucknow Thru. Its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA Thru. Ministry Of Finance, Govt. Of INDIA, New Delhi And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Sharda Tour And Travel, through its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Singh, approached the Allahabad High Court challenging an order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow. The petitioner's counsel argued that the case was listed for hearing on 11.10.2023 and subsequently on 18.10.2023. An application for a 15-day adjournment was filed due to the illness of the petitioner's counsel. This application was allegedly not considered, and the authority proceeded to pass a final order on merits against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the illness of their counsel necessitated the adjournment, and the authority should have granted it.

Held

The Court held that in the given circumstances, it would serve the interest of justice to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to argue their case. Consequently, the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow, was set aside. The Court reasoned that the denial of an adjournment, when the counsel was reportedly ill, led to a procedural deficiency. The ratio decidendi is that a party should not be deprived of their right to be heard due to circumstances beyond their control, such as the illness of their legal representative, without proper consideration of their request for adjournment. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and list the matter again before the respondent no.2. The petitioner was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Oudh Bar Association and was cautioned against seeking further adjournments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow, erred in not considering the petitioner's application for adjournment on the ground of counsel's illness, thereby violating the petitioner's right to a fair hearing? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that their counsel was genuinely ill, and the application for adjournment was moved by a junior. They contended that the respondent authority ought to have granted the requested adjournment to allow the petitioner to present their case properly. The petitioner relied on the principle that an opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the assessee. Respondent's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (Union of India and another) regarding the denial of adjournment or the merits of the case. The focus of the judgment is on the procedural irregularity raised by the petitioner.