Karuna Kumari vs. The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the principles of natural justice must be complied with. While the respondent claimed to have issued notices, including one via email under Section 33-A of the CEA, 1944, there was no concrete proof of the service of the email notice to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel stated that they had instructions that no such email was attached to the petitioner. Given the grievance that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2023. The matter was remitted back to the adjudicating authority to hear the case afresh, providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear before the adjudicating authority on 31st July, 2024, with necessary documents, for the matter to be disposed of expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, Karuna Kumari, filed a writ application challenging an order dated 29.11.2023, released on 05.12.2023, passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without an independent inquiry and without providing her an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Respondent-authority argued that notices were issued, but returned with the remark 'insufficient address'. Subsequently, a notice was issued via email as per Section 33-A of the CEA, 1944, but the petitioner did not respond. The proceeding was initiated based on information from the Income Tax Department regarding services rendered by the petitioner, as reflected in her Income Tax Return and TDS data for the financial year 2016-17.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.11.2023, passed by the Respondent-authority, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under the Finance Act, 1994 and relevant procedural laws. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that no notice was issued to her before passing the impugned order, thus preventing her from participating in the proceedings and violating the principles of natural justice. She asserted that the order, having civil and penal consequences, cannot sustain in law without due process. Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that notices were indeed issued. While the initial notice was returned due to 'insufficient address', a subsequent notice was sent via email in accordance with Section 33-A of the CEA, 1944. As the petitioner did not respond to these notices, the order was passed, and it cannot be considered illegal.