Manappuram Finance Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court decided to remand the proceedings to the State Tax Officer, Raigad Division, for reconsideration. The impugned order dated April 29, 2024, was quashed and set aside. The reasoning was that in the interest of justice, and in light of the decisions relied upon by the Petitioner (Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Birlanu Ltd.), the authority should re-examine the issues afresh. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions and that all contentions of the parties were expressly kept open to be urged before the said Authority. The challenge to the validity of Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, was expressly kept open to be decided at an appropriate stage. The operative direction was to pass a reasoned order, afresh, on merits and in accordance with law.

Facts

The Petitioner, Manappuram Finance Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and an order dated April 29, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer, Raigad Division. The Petitioner contended that they were not granted a personal hearing before the impugned order was passed. The Respondent-State refuted this, stating that a hearing was indeed provided, as indicated in the order. The Petitioner relied on two High Court decisions, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. Vs Union of India and Birlanu Ltd. Vs Union of India, arguing that the issues in their petition were covered by these precedents. The Court noted that the matter was to be decided in light of these decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, is ultra vires and invalid? 2. Whether the order dated April 29, 2024, passed by the State Tax Officer, Raigad Division, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of procedural impropriety, specifically the alleged denial of a personal hearing to the Petitioner? The Petitioner argued that they were not given a personal hearing, which is a fundamental procedural right, and relied on the decisions in Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Birlanu Ltd. to support their case. The Respondent-State contended that a hearing was provided, as evidenced in the impugned order. The Court was to decide these issues in light of the cited precedents.