2025 (2) TMI 787 - HC - GST

Scope of SCN - Non-mentioning about the Security Wages in the SCN - to fall under Administration Expenses or not - Seeking opportunity of personal hearing to present the case - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the case on hand though the entire impugned order has been challenged the learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his relief only with regard to the security wages and requested this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against all the other issues pertaining to the impugned assessment order dated 30.08.2024. As rightly contended by the petitioner the respondent found Security Wages and disputed the same only upon production of documents by the petitioner. Prior to the furnishing of documents no such issue was raised either vide show cause notice or in any other manner. In the show cause notice also the respondent had stated only with regard to the Administration Expenses . Conclusion - This Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to interfere on the aspect of non-providing of any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order only to the extent of Security Wages . As far as the remaining issues are concerned as requested by the petitioner this Court grants liberty to them to file an appeal against the impugned order. However it is not proper for the petitioner to file their appeal in a piecemeal manner. The impugned order dated 30.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration only on the aspect of Security Wages - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, specifically regarding "security wages," was valid.2. Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to explain their case on the aspect of "Security Wages" before the passing of the impugned order.3. Whether the respondents were justified in disputing the "Security Wages" without providing a personal hearing to the petitioner.Issue-wise detailed analysis:The relevant legal framework and precedents were based on principles of natural justice, which require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case before any adverse decision is made against them. The Court interpreted the petitioner's claim that the impugned order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, specifically focusing on the aspect of "Security Wages."Key evidence and findings included the petitioner's submission that the issue of "Security Wages" was not raised prior to the impugned order and that they were not given an opportunity to explain this aspect. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that "Security Wages" fell under "Administration Expenses" as mentioned in the show cause notice.The Court reasoned that the sudden raising of the issue of "Security Wages" without prior notice or opportunity for the petitioner to respond violated principles of natural justice. The Court concluded that the impugned order was flawed in this regard and decided to set it aside only to the extent of "Security Wages."Significant holdings:The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 was set aside and remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration specifically on the aspect of "Security Wages." The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file their reply/objection with required documents within two weeks. The 1st respondent was directed to issue a clear notice for a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders within two weeks after the hearing. The petitioner was also given 30 days to file an appeal against the impugned order, including the aspect of "Security Wages."In conclusion, the Court intervened due to the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to address the issue of "Security Wages" before the impugned order was passed. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing parties with a fair chance to present their case before any adverse decisions are made.