2017 (9) TMI 1197 - HC - Service Tax

Natural justice - Rejection of Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) declaration - whether the impugned rejection of the Declaration filed by the petitioner-Company under VCES, 2013 by the Respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, ST-I Commissionerate, Bangalore, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Company is sustainable or not? - Held that - the non-compliance with the principles of natural justice which was clarified by the concerned Ministry and Central Board of Excise and Customs to be read in the provisions of Section 106(2) of the Finance Act, 2013 were thus admittedly breached by the concerned Designated Authority in this case - the matter deserves to be reconsidered at the end of the said Designated Authority - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the rejection of the Declaration filed by the petitioner under VCES without a prior opportunity of hearing is sustainable.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a Company, filed a petition seeking various reliefs, including quashing the impugned order rejecting their Declaration under VCES without a hearing. The central issue before the Court was the legality of the rejection without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance mandated a hearing before rejection. Both counsels acknowledged that the impugned order was issued without a prior hearing, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the Circular's guidelines.

The Court noted the breach of natural justice principles as highlighted in the Circular and found that the Designated Authority failed to comply with the requirement of providing a hearing before rejection. Consequently, the Court held that the matter should be reconsidered by the Designated Authority. The Court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the Designated Authority. The Authority was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing a new order addressing all objections and contentions raised by the Company separately in the speaking order.

The Court instructed the petitioner to appear before the Respondent Authority on a specified date and directed the Authority to issue a speaking order within two months thereafter. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair hearing before making decisions that affect the rights of the parties involved.