2025 (11) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Param Shah, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner prays to quash and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2023 passed under the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) as well as the Order-in-Appeal dated 25.06.2024 passed under the provisions of the Act. 5. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition is that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt writ petition. 6. Mr. Devan Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Anmol Purohit learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the Order-in-Appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, the Appellate Authority has failed to consider the fact that the Order-in-Original was received by the petitioner from the department on 14.03.2024 and the appeal was filed on the very next date i.e. on 15.03.2024. There are multiple contrary dates of issuance and there is no proof of service by the department indicating the date on which the Order-in- Original was served to the petitioner. Therefore, in such a situation, the issue of limitation does not arise and the appeal could not have been dismissed on the ground of l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to pass appropriate orders. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, the issue involved is in a narrow compass. The petitioner has argued that looking to the record, more particularly para 9 of the Order-in- Original, it appears that three dates were scheduled for hearing i.e. 18.01.2023, 24.01.2023 and 30.01.2023 before the Adjudicating Authority. The issue, therefore, is whether these three dates were sufficient as contemplated under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec. 33A of the Act. 9.1 It has been categorically observed by this Court in the case of Regent Overseas Pvt Ltd (supra), that when three dates had been granted, it would tantamount to adjournmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... granted and has passed the impugned ex-parte order Such order is, therefore, clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice warranting interference by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 9.2 In wake of such submissions, the Order-in- Original is passed against the settled legal position and in breach of principles of natural justice. 9.3 It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not heard before passing of the Assessment Order. It is fundamental proposition of law that other side should be heard before any order is passed. The maxim of Audi Alteram Partem is broad enough to include the rule against bias since a fair hearing is must for it to be unbiased hearing. The essential i....