2018 (6) TMI 1145 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 262 (Ker.) – Principles of Natural Justice – Ext.P11 order is though appealable in terms of the Finance Act, 1994, the petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the same is vitiated for non compliance of the principles of natural justice – Held that:- In Ext.P10 explanation, the petitioner specifically sought for an opportunity of hearing. In so far as the petitioner sought specifically an opportunity of hearing in the matter in Ext.P10 explanation filed before passing the impugned order, in the light of the provisions contained in Section 33A of Central Excise Act, the second respondent should not have passed orders on the show cause notice, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
–
The order passed on 16.10.2017 is vitiated for noncompliance of the principles of natural justice.
–
Petition allowed. – W.P.(C.) No.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t the same is vitiated for non compliance of the principles of natural justice. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 3. Ext.P7 show cause notice is dated 15.06.2017. The petitioner received Ext.P7 show cause notice on 15.07.2017. Ext.P8 is the communication sent by the petitioner to the second respondent on 29.07.2017 on receipt of Ext.P7 notice. In terms of Ext.P8, the petitioner requested the second respondent to grant them time till September, 2017 to file objections against the proposal made in Ext.P7 notice. The second respondent has not responded to the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P8 communication. Instead, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to appear for hearing on Ext.P7 notice on 30.08.2017. A representative of the petitioner consequently appeared before the second respondent on 30.08.2017 and sought time till 30.09.2017 for filing objections against the proposal. On the said req
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nded the hearing on 20.09.2017 on behalf of the petitioner and sought time. The case set up by the petitioner that Udayakumar did not appear for the hearing on 20.09.2017 may not, therefore, be correct. I do not propose to render a finding on the correctness of the said case set up by the petitioner, for, according to me, it is unnecessary to render a finding on the said issue for the disposal of this matter. 5. By virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, various provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 including Section 33 A dealing with the adjudication procedure have been adopted for adjudication contemplated under Finance Act, 1994. Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads thus : 33A. Adjudication procedure.- (1)The Adjudicating authority shall, in any proceeding under this Chapter or any other provision of this Act, give an opportunity of being heard to a party in a proceeding, if the party so desires. (2) The Adjudicating authority may, if sufficient cause is sho
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
accordingly, adjourned to 20.09.2017. The proceedings of hearing dated 20.09.2017 which is made available by the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent indicates that the representative of the petitioner requested for time on 20.09.2017 also. The request made by the petitioner on 20.09.2017 has not been considered. Instead, the order was passed on 16.10.2017 without affording the petitioner a further opportunity of hearing. It is seen that in the meanwhile the petitioner submitted their explanation to the show cause notice on 28.09.2017. Ext.P10 is the explanation. In Ext.P10 explanation, the petitioner specifically sought for an opportunity of hearing. In so far as the petitioner sought specifically an opportunity of hearing in the matter in Ext.P10 explanation filed before passing the impugned order, in the light of the provisions contained in Section 33A of Central Excise Act, the second respondent should not have passed orders on the show cause notice, without affording
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =