M/S Dharambeer Kumar Singh vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dharambeer Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petitioner sought to set aside an assessment order passed by Respondent No. 3, the Additional Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, on June 15, 2022. The petitioner contended that this order was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and that their request for such a hearing was rejected. The respondents argued that notices were sent via speed post to the petitioner's registered address, and service should be deemed complete as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. They also contended that the petitioner's claim of not being heard was misconceived.

Held

The Court held that the assessment order passed by Respondent No. 3 on June 15, 2022, was issued without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 74(4) of the Finance Act, 2017. The Court noted the petitioner's contention that no personal hearing was granted and the respondents' submission regarding dispatch of notices. However, in view of the specific provision of Section 74(4) and the contentions presented, the Court found it necessary to ensure compliance. The Court directed the authorities to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with Section 74(4) of the Act. The Revenue was instructed to fix a date for the petitioner's appearance, and if the petitioner failed to appear on the fixed date, the Revenue would be at liberty to proceed further as per law. The ratio decidendi is that an order enhancing liability or reducing a refund cannot be made without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as stipulated by Section 74(4).

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated June 15, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee, as mandated by Section 74(4) of the Finance Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without providing a personal hearing, despite a request for one, thereby violating statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. They sought an opportunity for personal hearing and a review of the order. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contended that notices were duly sent to the petitioner's registered address via speed post. They asserted that service should be deemed complete under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and that the petitioner's claim of not being heard was incorrect.