M/S Sga Law Offices vs. Additional Commissioner Central GST Chandigarh And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s SGA Law Offices, filed a writ petition challenging two orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1). The first order, dated 19.04.2022, levied tax on legal consultancy services provided by the petitioner. The second order, dated 05.12.2022, upheld the first. The petitioner's grievance was that an ex parte order was passed despite them having submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 31.12.2020. The respondents, in their reply, did not dispute the fact that a reply was given by the petitioner on 28.01.2021, but contended that it was not part of the record. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 19.04.2022 and 05.12.2022. The Court reasoned that since the respondents did not dispute the fact that the petitioner had filed a reply dated 28.01.2021, and this fact was evident from Annexure P-6, the passing of an ex parte order was erroneous. The Court found it significant that the reply had been filed and bore the stamp of the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Chandigarh. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order. This fresh order is to be passed expeditiously, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing and after duly considering the reply filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-6), in accordance with the law. No specific section of the GST Act was discussed in detail, but the principle of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard and have a reply considered, was central to the decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 19.04.2022 and 05.12.2022, passed by respondent No. 1, are liable to be quashed on the ground that they were passed ex parte despite the petitioner having filed a reply to the show cause notice. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had duly submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 31.12.2020, which was received by the authorities as evidenced by the stamp dated 28.01.2021. Therefore, the passing of an ex parte order without considering this reply was illegal and arbitrary. Respondents' contention: The respondents admitted that a reply was filed by the petitioner on 28.01.2021, but their sole defense was that this reply was not part of the official record considered by the authority when passing the impugned orders.