Mediaedge Cia INDIA PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Mediaedge Cia India Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31st December 2023 passed by respondent no. 3. The petitioner contended that their submissions were not considered and that respondent no. 3 had merely reproduced an earlier order dated 11th August 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Division-East-2, CGST, Gurugram. The petitioner further stated they were not confronted with this earlier order nor were they called upon to make submissions regarding it. The respondent, represented by Ms. Vyas, initially suggested the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal but conceded that the court could pass appropriate orders when confronted with the fact that the petitioner's submissions were not dealt with in the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that respondent no. 3 ought to have dealt with all the submissions made by the petitioner and passed a reasoned order. The Court found that the impugned order failed to do so. Consequently, without delving into the merits of the case, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 31st December 2023. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 3 for denovo consideration. The Court directed that respondent no. 3 shall grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, with at least 7 working days' advance notice. The petitioner will have three working days from the conclusion of the personal hearing to file any written submissions. The final order to be passed must be a reasoned order addressing all of the petitioner's submissions. The Court explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31st December 2023, passed by respondent no. 3, is a reasoned order that has considered all the submissions made by the petitioner, as required by principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order failed to consider their submissions and instead verbatim reproduced an earlier order passed by another authority. They further contended that they were not even confronted with this earlier order and were not given an opportunity to make submissions on it, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent initially raised the issue of the petitioner having an alternative remedy by way of appeal. However, when confronted with the petitioner's assertion that their submissions were not considered, the respondent conceded that the court could pass appropriate orders.