Ram Gopal Harlalka vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that while the Order-in-Appeal recorded that the petitioner or his representative did not appear for multiple scheduled personal hearings, the petitioner's submitted medical records prima facie indicated that his non-appearance was due to grievous ailments. For the ends of justice, the Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as provided under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court further directed that the delay in filing the appeal should be given due consideration by the Appellate Tribunal, taking into account the circumstances leading to the petitioner's non-appearance before the Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner was given six weeks from the date of the order to file the appeal. Until the Appellate Tribunal disposed of the matter, no coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Ram Gopal Harlalka, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 22.03.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Shillong, which levied Service Tax based solely on Tax Deduction at Source (TDS). The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected by an order dated 22.02.2024. The petitioner contended that the Order-in-Appeal was passed without a personal hearing due to his serious medical condition, supported by medical records. The respondents acknowledged the petitioner's inability to appear but suggested approaching the Appellate Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.02.2024, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), is liable to be set aside for being passed without affording a personal hearing to the writ petitioner, contrary to principles of natural justice, given his documented medical incapacitation? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Appeal was passed without a personal hearing, which was crucial for presenting his case, and that his absence was due to severe medical conditions, supported by annexed medical records. He contended that the Order-in-Appeal, by upholding the Order-in-Original without considering his medical circumstances, was unjust. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, while not disputing the petitioner's inability to appear, submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. They highlighted that the Appellate Tribunal has the power to consider condonation of any delay.