Court sets aside order due to violation of natural justice, petitioner's plea upheld for fresh hearing The court set aside the order-in-original passed under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to a violation of principles of natural justice. The ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court sets aside order due to violation of natural justice, petitioner's plea upheld for fresh hearing
The court set aside the order-in-original passed under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to a violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner's contention that the order was passed before the scheduled personal hearing was upheld, leading to the decision to quash the order. The court allowed the respondents to issue fresh orders after providing proper notice and an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The writ petition was granted, with pending applications closed and no costs ordered.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing order-in-original under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought the quashing of the order-in-original dated 28.02.2017 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing a violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The order-in-original confirmed demands for various amounts, including education cess, secondary & higher education cess, and cenvat credit allegedly availed irregularly during specific periods.
3. Penalties were imposed for contraventions under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, in addition to the confirmed demands.
4. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 19.12.2016 before the passing of the order-in-original.
5. The petitioner was informed of personal hearing dates on 23.02.2017, 28.02.2017, and 03.03.2017, with a directive to appear on any one of the dates mentioned.
6. The petitioner contended that passing the order before the scheduled personal hearing on 03.03.2017 violated principles of natural justice, citing Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and a Gujarat High Court decision.
7. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to appear on 28.02.2017, and the mention of 03.03.2017 was a typographical error. They referred to a circular providing for three personal hearings and highlighted the availability of further appeal remedies.
8. The court acknowledged the general reluctance to entertain writ petitions when statutory remedies exist but noted exceptions for violations of natural justice.
9. The court examined the personal hearing notice and found that the abrupt passing of the order-in-original before the scheduled hearing on 03.03.2017 vitiated the process.
10. Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 28.02.2017, allowing the respondents to pass fresh orders with due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
11. The writ petition was allowed, with pending miscellaneous applications closed and no order as to costs.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
