Indian Spinal Injuries Centre vs. Assistant Commissioner (Dgst)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, is challenging a final order dated August 16, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (DGST) under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order finalized a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on May 29, 2024. The petitioner had filed a response to the SCN and subsequently requested adjournments on July 3, 2024, and August 5, 2024. The Assistant Commissioner observed that sufficient cause was not shown for these adjournments and that the petitioner had not appeared for a personal hearing. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging this final order.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated August 16, 2024. The Court found that the Assistant Commissioner had taken an "extremely narrow and pedantic view" in refusing the petitioner's requests for adjournment and had failed to assign any reasons to support the conclusion that the requests were unmerited. The Court held that this refusal amounted to a failure to adhere to principles of natural justice. Consequently, the proceedings were revived before the Assistant Commissioner, who was directed to proceed with the matter afresh, considering the petitioner's reply dated July 3, 2024, and to accord an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits were kept open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner erred in refusing the petitioner's requests for adjournment on July 3, 2024, and August 5, 2024, thereby violating principles of natural justice, particularly in light of Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner took an "extremely narrow and pedantic view" in refusing the adjournment requests and failed to assign any reasons for deeming the requests unmerited. The petitioner contended that this refusal led to a violation of their right to a personal hearing and a fair adjudication process. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through its counsel, conceded that the matter might merit being remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision, taking into account the reply submitted by the petitioner. The respondent did not contest the petitioner's assertion regarding the refusal of adjournments.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024 CM APPL. 59713/2024 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 14252/2024 & CM APPL. 59712/2024 (Interim Stay)
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the final order dated 16 August 2024, purported to have been passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171. In terms of the aforesaid, the respondent has proceeded to finalize the Show Cause Notice2 which was issued on 29 May 2024. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed its response to that notice. During the course of the proceedings which were drawn by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner had made a request for 1 Act 2 SCN This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/11/2024 at 11:26:06
adjournment on 03 July 2024. In the impugned order the Assistant Commissioner has merely observed that sufficient cause had not been shown even though the petitioner had sought adjournment on 03 July and 05 August 2024 and thus, had not appeared for a personal hearing before the authorities.
While there is some contestation with respect to the participation of the petitioner in the hearings that ensued and on the different dates which were fixed by the Assistant Commissioner, for the purposes of the present writ petition, we find it unnecessary to delve into those aspects since, and in our considered opinion, the Assistant Commissioner has clearly taken an extremely narrow and pedantic view while refusing to accede to the prayer for adjournment. The authority has failed to assign any reason in support of its conclusion that the request for adjournment was unmerited.
In light of the tentative conclusions noted above, Mr. Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the ends of justice may merit the matter being remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for deciding the proceedings afresh bearing in mind the reply which was submitted by the writ petitioner.
We, accordingly, allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 16 August 2024. The proceedings shall stand revived before the Assistant Commissioner who shall proceed to take a final view in the matter bearing in mind the petitioner’s reply dated 03 July 2024. The Assistant Commissioner would also be obliged to accord an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/11/2024 at 11:26:06
All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open. YASHWANT VARMA, J. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. OCTOBER 25, 2024/ib This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/11/2024 at 11:26:06
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.