Court remits case for fresh consideration due to violation of natural justice principles.

The Court found that the Authority for Advance Ruling violated principles of natural justice and fair play by not providing the petitioner with a crucial report from the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax. As a result, the Court set aside the original order and remitted the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Authority with the report, and the Authority was instructed to issue a new decision within 45 days without bias from the prior ruling. The Court emphasized that it did not express any opinion on the case's merits but sought to ensure procedural fairness and due process for the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice and fair play in passing an order by the Authority for Advance Ruling.

In the present case, the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, filed an application seeking an advance ruling on whether a specific term in the definition of 'Plant and Machinery' restricts the Landfilling pit from being considered as such, affecting the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 17(5)(d) of the GST Act. The Authority for Advance Ruling passed an order on 11.09.2020 based on a report from the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, stating that the structure in question is a concrete structure. However, the petitioner was not provided with this report, leading to an argument that the order was violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the report from the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax was not shared with the petitioner, depriving them of a fair opportunity to respond to the same. The Court, after careful consideration, found that the principles of natural justice and fair play were indeed violated in this case. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 11.09.2020 and remitted the matter back to the Authority for Advance Ruling. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Authority on a specified date, with instructions to consider the report submitted by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, which is now in the petitioner's possession. The Authority was directed to pass an appropriate order within 45 days without being influenced by its earlier decision, emphasizing that the Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Court's decision to allow the writ petition was based on the clear violation of procedural fairness and natural justice in the original order passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling. By remitting the matter back for fresh consideration, the Court ensured that the petitioner would have a fair opportunity to present their case with all relevant information available, thereby upholding the principles of fairness and due process in the adjudicatory process.

---