https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762180 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762180 Wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit - Seeking refund the excess utilization of ITC along with penalty - petitioner submits that the impugned order is only a copy-paste of the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice and the explanation provided therein has not been considered in a reasonable manner - violation of principles of natural justice - principles of audi alteram partem - HELD THAT:- The Apex Court in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another [ 1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT ] laid down the ratio in relation to the principles of audi alteram partem in the doctrine of natural justice holding that The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent permissible in a given case. It must not be forgotten that natural justice is pragmatically flexible and is amenable to capsulation under the compulsive pressure of circumstances . The audi alteram partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and judicial decisions establish that it may suffer situational modifications. The core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. Coming to the present writ petition in hand, three factors may be highlighted by this Court. Firstly, the impugned order merely copies the reply provided by the petitioner which leads to a conclusion that there was non application of mind by the respondent authority - Secondly, in the reply to the show cause notice, certain documents and reports were sought for by the assessee, which had been relied upon by the authorities. However, without providing the same to the assessee, the authorities proceeded to impose the tax liability and penalty - Thirdly, the explanation provided by the petitioner with regard to the use of the raw materials in the process of the manufacture by the petitioner supported with opinions of the experts were simply brushed aside by the respondent authority, who did not even examine whether the said raw materials had been used in manufacture of the final products which were fabrics - Without having done so and without granting an opportunity of fair hearing to the petitioner, the liability that has been imposed upon the petitioner appears to be patently illegal and without any authority in law. Thus, non production of certain documents to the petitioner that were relied upon by the authorities, coupled with the manner in which no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner leads us to the conclusion that severe prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Ergo, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated September 12, 2024 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondent authorities to examine the fabrics, provide a copy of the report to the petitioner, grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in the same - Petition allowed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530