Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, Exide Industries Limited, filed a writ
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging
the adjudication order dated 3rd February 2025 and the consequential Form GST
DRC-07 dated 4th February 2025 issued by the Respondent authority.
The dispute arose from allegations that the Petitioner had
availed ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC), leading to a substantial
demand exceeding ₹12 crores along with penalties.
A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 17th May 2024 was issued, to
which the Petitioner responded on 10th June 2024. Multiple personal hearing
notices were subsequently issued; however, the Petitioner contended that either
such notices were not received or were received on the date of hearing itself,
thereby preventing effective participation.
Despite attempts by the Petitioner to approach the Respondent’s office, the impugned order was passed without granting a proper hearing.
Issues Involved
- Whether
the adjudication order passed without granting an effective opportunity of
hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether
repeated adjournments or laxity on the part of the Petitioner justifies
denial of a fair hearing.
- Whether the demand raised on account of alleged ineligible ITC can sustain in absence of procedural fairness.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
Petitioner argued that no effective opportunity of personal hearing
was granted.
- Notices
for hearing were either not received or received on the same day, making
compliance impossible.
- The
impugned order was passed in violation of audi alteram partem (right to
be heard).
- The Petitioner had made bona fide efforts to participate in proceedings by visiting the Respondent’s office.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
Respondent contended that multiple opportunities of hearing were
granted.
- It
was argued that there was laxity on the part of the Petitioner in
attending hearings and seeking adjournments.
- The adjudication order was passed after due consideration of the material on record.
Court’s Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court observed that:
- Although
there was laxity on the part of the Petitioner, the Respondent also
failed to ensure that an effective hearing was granted.
- Passing
a detailed order involving a substantial demand exceeding ₹12 crores
without proper hearing amounts to violation of principles of natural
justice.
Final Directions:
- The
impugned order dated 3rd February 2025 was set aside.
- The
matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication after granting proper
hearing.
- The
Petitioner was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs to the Delhi High
Court Bar Association.
- The
Respondent was directed to provide at least five working days’ advance
notice for the hearing.
- No
adjournment shall be sought by the Petitioner in future proceedings.
- The limitation period under Section 75(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 shall not apply due to repeated adjournments.
Important Clarifications by the Court
- Even
where the assessee shows negligence or seeks adjournments, complete
denial of hearing is impermissible.
- Authorities
must balance procedural discipline with fair opportunity principles.
- Imposition
of costs can be used as a tool to address litigant laxity while preserving
justice.
- Relaxation of limitation under Section 75(3) CGST Act may be justified in exceptional circumstances.
Sections Involved
- Article
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
- Section
75(3), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
- Principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem)
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS17042025CW48222025_111003.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment