2025 (4) TMI 805 - HC - GST

Principles of Natural Justice - Exemption to goods cleared from a unit located in the state of Jammu and Kashmir - benefit of N/N. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 - opportunity of hearing not provided to the petitioner - Conclusion - The impugned memorandum(s) passed by Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 3 and the recoveries initiated fly in the face of judgment dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. In terms of judgment in LUPIN LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2020 (12) TMI 909 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT the Respondent No. 3 was under a legal obligation to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 was also required to pass a reasoned order so that the petitioner could know the basis of acceptance or otherwise of his claim. This however has not happened in this case. The impugned office memorandum(s) dated 26.07.2021 and 05.08.2021 respectively including the recovery proceedings if any initiated by the respondents quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta, reviewed a petition challenging two Office Memorandums issued by Respondents No. 1 and No. 3. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Bharat Raichandani, invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that the memorandums violated a prior judgment dated 24.09.2020 in OWP No. 1458/2018 (Lupin Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors). This prior judgment had quashed an earlier order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision with a due hearing for the petitioner.The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3 failed to conduct any proceedings or notify the petitioner, and instead, issued the impugned memorandums, directing recoveries without a reasoned order. The Court found that the actions of Respondents No. 1 and No. 3 contradicted the prior judgment, which mandated a fresh, reasoned order post-hearing.The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, quashed the memorandums dated 26.07.2021 and 05.08.2021, including any recovery actions. Respondent No. 3 was directed to issue a reasoned order after allowing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, in compliance with the judgment dated 24.09.2020.