Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
HC held that the Adjudicating Authority violated principles of natural justice by passing the Order-in-Original without affording the assessee a proper personal hearing. The portal entries and note did not specify the mandatory particulars of personal hearing, namely date, time and venue, as required during ongoing proceedings under section 75(5), including before passing any adverse order. As this procedural lapse vitiated the adjudication, the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 and the appellate order dated 06.03.2025 were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded, directing the Adjudicating Authority to duly intimate the assessee of the date and time of personal hearing and proceed afresh in accordance with law.
HC held that the Adjudicating Authority violated principles of natural justice by passing the Order-in-Original without affording the assessee a proper personal hearing. The portal entries and note did not specify the mandatory particulars of personal hearing, namely date, time and venue, as required during ongoing proceedings under section 75(5), including before passing any adverse order. As this procedural lapse vitiated the adjudication, the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 and the appellate order dated 06.03.2025 were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded, directing the Adjudicating Authority to duly intimate the assessee of the date and time of personal hearing and proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.