9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1362 - HC - Service TaxPrinciples of Natural Justice - opportunity for personal hearing was given to the petitioner on an earlier occasion - fresh opportunity can be granted or not - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not granted personal hearing in the matter, despite a mandatory requirement to that effect, we are inclined to set aside the order-in-original dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services (CGST), Audit-II, Delhi. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Lack of personal hearing as per revised guidelines. 2. Availability of petitioner's email ID with the respondent. 3. Contravention of guidelines in passing ex parte order. 4. Discrepancy in assessment for different assessment years. 5. Setting aside the order-in-original and granting a fresh hearing. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Lack of personal hearing as per revised guidelines The petitioner challenged an order-in-original dated 02.02.2021, contending that it was passed in violation of revised guidelines requiring mandatory personal hearing through video conferencing. The petitioner argued that no such opportunity was provided, leading to the order being passed ex parte. The respondent claimed that a notice for a hearing on 09.12.2020 was issued, but the petitioner's Authorized Representative was not recognized due to the absence of a vakalatnama. However, the respondent failed to confirm the availability of the petitioner's email ID for communication. Issue 2: Availability of petitioner's email ID with the respondent During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel presented screenshots showing the respondent's web portal displaying the petitioner's email ID. This contradicted the respondent's claim of unavailability of the email ID for sending hearing notifications. The court noted the importance of the email ID for communication and the necessity of providing hearing intimation to the petitioner. Issue 3: Contravention of guidelines in passing ex parte order The court observed discrepancies in the respondent's actions regarding the mandated personal hearing and email communication. Due to the lack of clarity on the availability of the petitioner's email ID and failure to adhere to the revised guidelines, the court was inclined to set aside the order-in-original dated 02.02.2021. Issue 4: Discrepancy in assessment for different assessment years The petitioner highlighted that the issues raised for assessment years 2013-2016 were similar to those addressed in a previous demand-cum-show-cause notice from 2008-2013. The petitioner claimed that the previous adjudication had resulted in dropping most of the demand, except for a specific amount. Cross-appeals related to this matter were pending before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Issue 5: Setting aside the order-in-original and granting a fresh hearing Considering the lack of personal hearing despite the mandatory requirement, the court decided to set aside the order-in-original and instructed the petitioner's Authorized Representative to appear before the concerned officer for a fresh hearing on 09.05.2022. The officer was directed to grant a hearing and communicate any changes in schedule via email, with the option of participation through video conferencing. The court disposed of the writ petition and related applications accordingly, emphasizing the need for timely communication and compliance with procedural requirements.
|
