M\/s. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE FUND BOARD Versus UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI AND COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 1145 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 262 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 30-1-2018
W.P.(C.) No.1809 of 2018
Central Excise
MR. P. B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
\nFor The Petitioner : Sri.Shaji Thomas, Sri.Jen Jaison And Smt.Rahana Jose
\nFor The Respondent : Sri.N. Nagaresh, ASG, Smt.O.M. Shalina, CGC And Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier, SC
\nJUDGMENT
\nPetitioner is the Board constituted for administration of the Kerala Co-operative Development and Welfare Fund established in terms of Section 57A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Risk Fund established in terms of Section 57D of the said Act. As per Ext.P7 notice, the second respondent has called upon the petitioner to show cause, among others, why service tax amounting to Rs. 1<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n st 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 request, the petitioner was granted time till the middle of September, 2017 and the hearing was, accordingly, adjourned to 20.09.2017. The case of the petitioner is that nobody appeared for the hearing on behalf of the petitioner before the second respondent on 20.09.2017 and nevertheless, Ext.P11 order has been passed as if the representative of the petitioner appeared for the hearing on 20.09.2017 and made submissions on behalf of the petitioner. Ext.P11 order recites that one Udayakumar appeared on behalf of the petitioner for the hearing on 20.09.2017. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, they have caused the said Udayaku<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n t, 1994. Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads thus : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ally 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. It is all the more so since the petitioner sought time from the very beginning only till the end of September, 2017. It is all the more so also as the petitioner is a statutory body, and in terms of the show cause notice, substantial amounts running to several crores was proposed to be realised from the petitioner. In the said view of the matter, according to me, the order passed on 16.10.2017 is vitiated for noncompliance of the principles of natural justice. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE FUND BOARD Versus UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI AND COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMCentral Excise2018 (6) TMI 1145 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 262 (Ker.)KERALA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 30-1-2018W.P.(C.) No.1809 of 2018 Central ExciseMR. P. … Continue reading “M\/s. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE FUND BOARD Versus UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI AND COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12355","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12355"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12355\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “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.
\n (2) The Adjudicating authority may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of proceeding referred to in sub-section (1), grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing:
\n Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the proceeding.”
\nA reading of Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 indicates beyond doubt that the scheme of the Central Excise Act is that the adjudicating authority appointed in terms of the said statute shall complete the adjudication proceedings only after affording the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, if they so desires. The <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIn the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P11 order is quashed and the second respondent is directed to pass fresh <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n