M/S Vasco Environmental INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Vasco Environmental India Private Limited and its Managing Director, challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax, Appeals - I, Hyderabad (Respondent No. 2). The appellate authority had fixed a personal hearing date for 21.06.2024. However, on 20.06.2024, an authorized representative of the petitioners appeared before the authority to inform them about the death in the family of the petitioners' Chartered Accountant, requesting a different hearing date. The appellate authority treated this appearance as the final hearing, closed the matter on 20.06.2024, and passed the final order on 25.06.2024. The petitioners contended that this procedural irregularity violated principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order suffers from procedural impropriety and runs contrary to the principles of natural justice. The admitted fact was that the appellate authority had fixed the hearing for 21.06.2024. The petitioners' authorized representative appeared on 20.06.2024, a day prior, for the limited purpose of informing the authority about the inability to appear on the fixed date due to a family bereavement and to request a different date. The Court found that treating this appearance as the date of hearing, when it was not the scheduled date, is a practice unknown to law. Consequently, the appellate authority's conclusion of the matter on 20.06.2024, before the scheduled hearing date, could not sustain judicial scrutiny. The impugned order was set aside. The parties agreed to appear before the same appellate authority on 02.12.2024 at 11:00 AM, and no fresh notice would be required. The appellate authority was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, and no limitation would impede the passing of a fresh order. The Court did not express any view on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the appellate authority (Respondent No. 2) is illegal and erroneous for violating the principles of natural justice and suffering from procedural impropriety, specifically by treating the appearance on 20.06.2024 as the final hearing when the scheduled date was 21.06.2024? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the impugned order suffers from procedural impropriety and violates the principles of natural justice. They contended that their authorized representative appeared on 20.06.2024 solely to inform the authority about the death in the Chartered Accountant's family and to request an adjournment. This representative was not equipped to argue the case, and the matter should not have been closed on that day, a day before the scheduled hearing. Therefore, the order passed based on this premature closure is bad in law. Revenue's arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the authorized representative appeared for the personal hearing on 20.06.2024 and reiterated submissions made in the appeal, leading to the appellate order. No other point was pressed.