TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India, prays for diverse reliefs in the context of challenge to the show cause notice dated 22nd September, 2023 issued by Respondent No. 1. The original substantive reliefs as prayed for read thus:- "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Impugned SCN dated 22.09.2023 is ultra vires the provisions of (i) Section 61 (1) of the CGST Act; (ii) Section 61 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 99 of the CGST Rules; (iii) ultra vires Section 73 of the CGST Act. (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioners case and aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered and adjudicated at the hearing of the show cause notice which was fixed on 5th December, 2023. 5. The Petitioner, in pursuance thereto, on 5th December, 2023 filed its preliminary objections. A copy of which is annexed at Exh. "A" to the Additional Affidavit dated 8th February, 2024 filed on behalf of the Petitioner. 6. Our attention is drawn to paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections wherein the Petitioner has specifically contended that the Petitioner was attending the personal hearing in the context of such preliminary objections which were expected to be considered. Paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections reads thus:- "2:-At the very outset, it is submitted that the Company is attending the personal hearing today i.e. 05.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s be restrained from in any manner enforcing or acting upon the order bearing F. No.V/15-77/CGST/P-1/ADJ/Pepsico/23-24 dated 29.12.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 1." 9. Mr. Rohan Shah, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in assailing the Order-in-Original, has confined his submissions to the Petitioner's challenge on the ground that the adjudication which has resulted in the Order-in-Original, is not a fair adjudication, inasmuch as what was expected from the adjudicating officer and as observed by this Court in its Order dated 1st December, 2023, passed on this Petition, was that the preliminary issues as raised by the Petitioner, be decided. It is his submission that, the Petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission to the effect that the law would not provide any discretion to the adjudicating officer to first decide the preliminary objections and, thereafter, take up the show cause notice, however, not disputing that order of this Court, firstly mandated the determination of the preliminary objections. Mr. Mishra also submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was found proper by the adjudicating officer that, since several earlier opportunities were granted to the Petitioner, the show cause notice itself be decided, and, accordingly, the adjudicating officer has taken a call to decide the show cause notice, in passing the impugned Order-in-Original. 11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and having perused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and would be decided. The hearing on the preliminary objections took place on 5th December, 2023, sans a faintest idea to the Petitioner that a final order on the show cause notice would be passed. Further, no opportunity to place on record the relevant documents was granted to the Petitioner, nor the same could be raised for want of the Petitioner's knowledge that the show cause notice itself is being taken up for decision much less on the ground, that the show cause notice needs to be decided by 31st December, 2023, failing which, it would be barred by limitation. 13. In the above circumstances, in our opinion, considering the well settled principles of law in regard to quasi-judicial adjudication necessarily a fair and proper opportuni....