Court sets aside order due to lack of personal hearing, discrepancies, and guideline contravention. Fresh hearing scheduled.

The court set aside the order-in-original dated 02.02.2021 due to the lack of personal hearing as per revised guidelines, discrepancies in email communication, and contravention of guidelines. The petitioner's Authorized Representative was instructed to appear for a fresh hearing on 09.05.2022, with communication to be conducted via email or video conferencing. The court emphasized the importance of timely communication and adherence to procedural requirements, disposing of the writ petition and related applications accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Lack of personal hearing as per revised guidelines.
2. Availability of petitioner's email ID with the respondent.
3. Contravention of guidelines in passing ex parte order.
4. Discrepancy in assessment for different assessment years.
5. Setting aside the order-in-original and granting a fresh hearing.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Lack of personal hearing as per revised guidelines
The petitioner challenged an order-in-original dated 02.02.2021, contending that it was passed in violation of revised guidelines requiring mandatory personal hearing through video conferencing. The petitioner argued that no such opportunity was provided, leading to the order being passed ex parte. The respondent claimed that a notice for a hearing on 09.12.2020 was issued, but the petitioner's Authorized Representative was not recognized due to the absence of a vakalatnama. However, the respondent failed to confirm the availability of the petitioner's email ID for communication.

Issue 2: Availability of petitioner's email ID with the respondent
During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel presented screenshots showing the respondent's web portal displaying the petitioner's email ID. This contradicted the respondent's claim of unavailability of the email ID for sending hearing notifications. The court noted the importance of the email ID for communication and the necessity of providing hearing intimation to the petitioner.

Issue 3: Contravention of guidelines in passing ex parte order
The court observed discrepancies in the respondent's actions regarding the mandated personal hearing and email communication. Due to the lack of clarity on the availability of the petitioner's email ID and failure to adhere to the revised guidelines, the court was inclined to set aside the order-in-original dated 02.02.2021.

Issue 4: Discrepancy in assessment for different assessment years
The petitioner highlighted that the issues raised for assessment years 2013-2016 were similar to those addressed in a previous demand-cum-show-cause notice from 2008-2013. The petitioner claimed that the previous adjudication had resulted in dropping most of the demand, except for a specific amount. Cross-appeals related to this matter were pending before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Issue 5: Setting aside the order-in-original and granting a fresh hearing
Considering the lack of personal hearing despite the mandatory requirement, the court decided to set aside the order-in-original and instructed the petitioner's Authorized Representative to appear before the concerned officer for a fresh hearing on 09.05.2022. The officer was directed to grant a hearing and communicate any changes in schedule via email, with the option of participation through video conferencing. The court disposed of the writ petition and related applications accordingly, emphasizing the need for timely communication and compliance with procedural requirements.

---