M/S Trichy Plus vs. Deputy Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It set aside the impugned Order in Original No. 72/2022-ST dated March 15, 2022, taking into consideration the petitioner's submission that a partner was suffering from a hepatic problem during the period when the case was fixed for hearing. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount confirmed by the impugned order. Subject to this compliance, the impugned order was quashed, and recovery was stayed. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notice. The petitioner was granted 30 days from the receipt of the order to file a final reply, after which the respondent was to pass a final order on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months. The petitioner was directed to cooperate, failing which the respondent could pass orders based on available materials. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness and principles of natural justice, including adequate opportunity of hearing, are paramount, and genuine reasons for non-appearance, such as severe medical emergencies, warrant reconsideration of ex-parte orders, provided there is a willingness to comply with certain conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Trichy Plus, a partnership firm engaged in educational services, filed a writ petition challenging the Order in Original No. 72/2022-ST dated March 15, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy I Division. This order confirmed a demand proposed in a show cause notice dated December 29, 2020. The petitioner contended that due to a partner's severe hepatic ailment in February 2022, they could not appear for a personal hearing, leading to the adverse order. They also stated they could not file a statutory appeal within the prescribed time due to the limitation period under Section 86 of the Finance Act. The petitioner sought an opportunity to be heard and for fresh assessment proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order in Original No. 72/2022-ST dated 15.03.2022, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of procedural illegality and violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the GST/Central Excise law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order should be quashed because they were unable to appear for the personal hearing due to a partner's serious medical condition. They also contended that they could not file a statutory appeal within the stipulated time due to the limitation period. They sought an opportunity to present their case before the respondent. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the writ petition was devoid of merits and should be dismissed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CCT Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) 19 SCC 681.