9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meters for exercising discretion of this Court to entertain the petition inspite of there being an alternate remedy of an appeal. This is a clear case where the adjudicating officer was required to take into consideration the specific request as made by the petitioner that an opportunity of personal hearing be granted to the petitioner. When such specific plea was taken, a mechanical approach was adopted by the adjudicating officer in only noticing the box where inadvertently the petitioner had put a tick mark on No . Thus, this was not a case where the petitioner had expressly waived its right of personal hearing. In the absence of the petitioner waiving its right of a personal hearing, the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Exhibit A ); 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of freight forwarding, clearance, logistics, warehousing, distribution etc. On 5th January 2021, respondent no. 3 issued a notice for conducting audit of the books of account of the petitioner for the period 2017-18. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted various documents. On 2nd September 2022, discrepancies noted by the audit team were communicated to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed a detailed reply. On 19th October 2022, Final Audit Report in Form ADT-02 intimating the audit observations were communicated to the petitioner. 3. On 7th June 2023, respondent no. 3 issued a show cause notice along with summary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and is required to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the respondents would submit that in the reply dated 11th July 2023 to the show cause notice, although the petitioner sought for personal hearing, however, while tick marking the box relating to the option for personal hearing, the petitioner has ticked mark the box No and, therefore, no personal hearing was granted. The respondents would further contend that the impugned order is an appealable order and, therefore, the petition be not entertained, and the petitioner should be relegated to take recourse to the alternate remedy of an appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing. The department was thus under an obligation to grant an opportunity of a hearing to the petitioner. 10. In our opinion, this is a clear case where the adjudicating officer was required to take into consideration the specific request as made by the petitioner that an opportunity of personal hearing be granted to the petitioner. When such specific plea was taken, a mechanical approach was adopted by the adjudicating officer in only noticing the box where inadvertently the petitioner had put a tick mark on No . Thus, this was not a case where the petitioner had expressly waived its right of personal hearing. 11. In the absence of the petitioner waiving its right of a personal hearing, the provisions of Section 75(4) of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
