|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 11456 Records
-
2024 (3) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - requirement to make pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount - Permission to petitioner to withdraw and/or to operate the Petitioner’s bank account, so as to make pre-deposit for filing of such Appeal - HELD THAT:- The prayers as made in the Petition are required to be permitted, as such amount is to be utilized by the Petitioner for making the pre-deposit, hence, it would not fall under the description of the amount being used for any private purpose, but to deposit the same, with the Government for maintaining the Appeal. We have taken a similar view in other proceedings.
The Petitioner is permitted to operate Bank Account No. 713915009 to withdraw the amount of Rs. 7,89,09,671/- to be deposited for the purpose of filing of the Appeal in assailing the impugned Order-in-Original - Petitioner is also permitted to avail of the facility of electronics (NEFT/ RTGS) transfer for making such deposit. To such extent and only in respect of the said amount, the provisional attachment of the Bank Account in question shall stand lifted, and for no other purpose. It should be a single transaction - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 785 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty proceedings u/s 129(3) of UPGST Act - search and seizure is carried out at the godown - subsequent to search and seizure carried out under Section 67 of the Act, penalty proceedings have been launched - HELD THAT:- There does not seem to be any controversy with regard to the facts as penned in the writ petition with regard to the imposition of the penalty under Section 129 (3) of the Act, in spite of there being search and seizure carried out under Section 67 of the Act.
The entire proceedings that have been initiated have no feet to stand, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated June 15, 2018 and May 1, 2019 are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 784 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - order under Section 74 of the Act was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Upon an examination of the material on record, it is found that this will be an exercise in futility to grant time for filing the counter affidavit, as the point involved in this writ petition is only a point of law. Firstly, as held by this Court in M/S SHREE SAI PALACE VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [2024 (3) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] this Court has held that if an adverse order is passed under Section 74 of the Act, it is mandatory that opportunity of hearing be granted under Section 75(4) of the Act. On this very basis, the impugned orders do not have any legs to stand and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Furthermore, the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in M/S DAIMOND (DIAMOND) STEEL VERSUS STATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS [2023 (4) TMI 497 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]is also buttressing the arguments of the petitioner that the adjudication carried out by the authorities below was nothing but a best judgement assessment, and accordingly, is against the principles as established in law.
The impugned orders dated February 22, 2023 and January 16, 2023 are quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authorities to carry out de novo assessment, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from date - petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 783 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Doctrine of promissory estoppel - Benefit under incentive Scheme - Scenarios of new Acts replacing the VAT Act, ensuring entitlement despite the GST regime. - refusal to disburse the rest of the amount of the scheme on the plea that in the altered GST regime, the scheme cannot be continued, since the scheme did not contemplate of such tax - HELD THAT:- A close scrutiny of Clause 19.2 of the subsidy scheme indicates that the same specifically stipulates that in the event of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 “being replaced by any other Act”, the provision of the Scheme will apply mutatis mutandis even after the new Act comes into force - Thus, in the absence of any other Act being introduced apart from the GST Act, which has subsumed the VAT Act, the argument advanced by the respondents cannot be accepted.
Admittedly and even as per such judgment as cited by the respondents, the said component is also envisaged within the GST scheme of things. Both the Centre and States have their respective shares in the GST taxes. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents would be deprived of any component if the petitioners come within the purview of the GST scheme - In the present case, the petitioners were issued both RC-I and RC-II and the petitioners’ application under the subsidy scheme was duly sanctioned.
The petitioners, in fact, have continued commercial production under the specific promise made by the State of giving the incentive/subsidy under the scheme-in question - the doctrine of promissory estoppel is squarely applicable in the present case.
The sanction was granted to the petitioners under the said Scheme, thereby clearly admitting the fact and acquiescing to the position that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the scheme - the petitioners are squarely entitled to claim the benefits of the subsidy scheme-in-question even after coming into force of the GST Act, as per Clause 19. 2 of the Scheme.
The respondent authorities have acted palpably de hors the scope of the scheme in passing the impugned order dated February 17, 2022 authored by the Managing Director, West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited where it has been held that the petitioners are not eligible for disbursement/sanction for incentive under the Scheme. The said order is, thus, set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 782 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Levy of interest u/s 50(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 - wrong availment of Input of Tax Credit and reversal thereof - respondents fairly states that there has been an amendment made in the Finance Act, 2022 in Section 50(3) with retrospective effect from 1st July, 2017 which entitles the petitioner not to pay the interest on the Input Tax Credit availed and reversed but the same has not been utilized - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 and an order dated 11.01.2022 passed by respondent no.3 are hereby set aside and the petitioner is relegated back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration as per law.
-
2024 (3) TMI 781 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery notice - Validity of assessment orders pertaining to four assessment years - notices were not served in accordance with Section 169 of applicable GST statutes - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On examining the show cause notice, it is evident that personal hearing was offered to the petitioner. In these circumstances, as a registered person, the explanation provided by the petitioner for not responding to these notices is not convincing. On examining the impugned assessment order, it is clear that the petitioner was not heard. It is also clear that the assessing officer relied on information available on a particular website on the internet to attribute values to materials used in construction. If the petitioner had been heard, the petitioner would have able to place relevant materials on record to endeavor to convince the assessing officer that the values estimated by him are incorrect. In these facts and circumstances, the impugned assessment orders warrant interference, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned assessment orders are quashed subject to the condition that 10% of the disputed tax demand under each assessment order be adjusted against the credit available in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner. The petitioner is also permitted to submit replies to the show cause notice within a maximum period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 780 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Dismissal of the petition under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Seeking to avail the option under section 30 of the GST Act for revocation of the cancellation of registration - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- Section 39 of the GST Act provides that every registered person other than an input service distributor or a non-resident taxable person shall for every calendar month or part thereof furnish a return of inward and outward supply of goods and service. There are other requirements/ stipulations under section 39 which every registered person/Firm is required to comply. Section 45 provides a window to the registered person/Firm for restoration of the registration by allowing/furnishing of a final return within three months from the date of the cancellation or from the date of the order of cancellation whichever is later. Under section 30, any registered person whose registration is cancelled may apply for revocation of cancellation of registration in the prescribed manner.
The primary object behind the GST Act is levy and collection of tax on intra State supply of goods or services and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Now the cancellation of registration shall ensue serious civil consequences for the petitioner and his entire business shall come to a standstill. The provisions under sections 30, 45, 46, 47 etc. are intended at providing opportunity to the defaulter Firm so as the Firm continues its business. Therefore, a liberal approach is required to be taken in the matters like the present proceeding notwithstanding the period prescribed under section 30 of the GST Act having been lapsed - a permission to the petitioner to file an application under section 30 of GST Act can be granted subject to the petitioner making payment of dues and other statutory penalty/fine for moving the application under section 30 of the GST Act.
The present writ petition succeeds to the extent that the petitioner may file an application under section 30 of the GST Act within a period of 30 days and the period of limitation shall be counted from the date of this order - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 779 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing not provided - It is the case of the petitioner that the SCN itself reflects that the date of personal hearing, time of personal hearing and the venue of personal hearing has been left blank - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of Section 75(4) of the Act, it is evident that opportunity of hearing is to be granted by authorities under the Act wherein request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or opportunity of hearing where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Thus, where an adverse decision is contemplated against a person, such a person even need not to request for opportunity of personal hearing and it is mandatory for the authority concerned to afford opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order adverse of such person, as has been held in MAT No. 205 of 2023.
This Court finds that the appellate authority has violated the principle of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the present writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 - It is hereby directed that the appellate authority shall give personal hearing to the petitioner and his appeal shall be decided on merits.
As the petitioner deposited pre-deposit amount 10% of the disputed tax amount, there shall be a stay of the recovery proceedings till disposal of the appeal case - the present writ petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 778 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment orders pertaining to specific assessment years - allegation is that petitioner had not produced project wise details of work done in every financial year - concrete evidence to prove the nature of business carried on by the petitioner or not - HELD THAT:- On examining the impugned assessment orders, it is noticeable that the reply submitted by the petitioner on several dates were referred to therein. All the documents submitted by the petitioner, such as purchase documents, Government approvals, copies of sale deeds to customers, documents relating to development fees paid to the Government and the statement relating to purchase of goods were taken into account.
It is evident that the assessing officer engaged with the evidence placed on record by the petitioner and entered findings after appraising such evidence. It cannot be said that a reasonable opportunity was not provided to the petitioner and that the order is a consequence of non application of mind. In these circumstances, no case is made out to warrant interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. The appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be to carry these assessment orders in appeal before the appellate authority.
These writ petitions were filed in January 2024 after orders were issued on the rectification petitions on 05.01.2024. In these circumstances, if appeals are presented by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority is directed to consider and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 777 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Rectification of errors in filing GST Returns - Error on the part of the petitioner while submitting its GST returns for the period July, 2017 i.e., at the stage when GST law was at its primitive stage upon being implemented with effect from 01.07.2017 - HELD THAT:- HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that the impugned order being totally silent about the contentions and submissions made by the petitioner in its reply to the show cause notice; it is inclined to interdict the impugned order and setting aside the same further remitting the matter back to respondent No. 1 for reconsideration of the submissions of the petitioner that were raised in its reply to the show cause notice and to pass orders afresh. It is directed that respondent No. 1 may grant fresh personal hearing to the petitioner.
In order to avoid further delay, the petitioner are directed to remain present before the authority concerned on 27.02.2024, for which there would not be any necessity of issuance of a fresh notice by the authority concerned.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (3) TMI 776 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and non-payment of fee towards filing of appeal - delay of 920 days - Exemption from GST - service of cold storage of tamarind inner pulp without shell and seeds - comes within the purview of the definition of Agricultural produce vide Notification No. 11/2017 and 12/2013-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 or not - HELD THAT:- The order was received by the Appellant on 03.04.2021 as per the RPAD acknowledgment card received and placed in the office records. Hence the last date for filing the appeal under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, would be 02.05.2021. The last date for filing the appeal with a delay of 30 days with condonation petition (as per first proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017) would be 01.06.2021, Whereas it is seen that the actual date of filing the appeal by the Appellant was on 07.11.2023. Clearly, there has been a delay of 920 days from the last date of filing the appeal under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
As per the statute, the Appellate Authority can condone a delay of 30 days beyond the normal period of thirty days given for filing the appeal provided, sufficient cause is shown by the Appellant. In the present case, there is a delay of 920 days which is way beyond the power of the Appellate authority to condone, let alone examining as to whether sufficient cause was shown by the Appellant.
The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant - the filing of the appeal falls beyond the powers conferred under proviso to Section 100(2) of the COST Act, 2017.
The ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs CCE, Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. It is evident that this Appellate Authority being a creation of the statute is empowered to condone the delay of only a period of 30 days after the expiry of the initial period for filing appeal. As far as the language of section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 is concerned, the crucial words are ‘not exceeding thirty days’ used in the proviso to sub-section (2) - further, to hold that this Appellate Authority could entertain this appeal beyond the extended period under the proviso would render the phrase ‘not exceeding thirty days’ wholly redundant. No principle of interpretation would justify such a result. Notwithstanding the above, the Appellate Authority is not a ‘Court’ and hence the power to condone beyond the prescribed period does not lie with it.
Since the appeal cannot be allowed to proceed on account of time limitation, the question of discussing the merits of the issue in this case in appeal does not arise.
The delay cannot be condoned - appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 748 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - time limitation - petitioner states that an appeal was filed against such cancellation order but that such appeal was rejected as being time barred - HELD THAT:- The appellate authority cannot be faulted for rejecting the appeal in view of the language of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. At the same time, the petitioner should not be left without remedy. The reasons set out in the order of cancellation is non filing of returns for a continuous period of more than six months. In Suguna Cutpiece v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST) and others, [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], this Court directed restoration of registration subject to certain conditions. In the over all facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to an order on similar lines.
The petitioner is directed to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, together with tax dues along with interest thereon and the fee fixed for belated filing of returns within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 746 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - petitioner states that he could not file a reply as he did not had access to the portal as the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled retrospectively - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the Show Cause Notice shows that the Department has given separate headings excess claim Input Tax Credit [ITC], under declaration of ineligible ITC and ITC claim from cancelled dealers, return defaulters and tax non-payers.
The impugned order, however, after recording the narration, records that a demand as ex-parte is created - the petitioner was unable to access the Show Cause Notice or reply to the said Show Cause Notices.
The impugned order which had been passed solely on account that petitioner had not file a reply cannot be sustained. The matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 is set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 745 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Retrospective cancellation of registration - SCN does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively - petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The SCN and the impugned order are bereft of any details accordingly the same cannot be sustained and neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria.
It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period. Although, it is not considered apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
In view of the fact that Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 27.02.2021 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 18.02.2021 i.e., the date when the Show Cause Notice was issued. Petitioner shall make the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 744 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - Interpretation of statute - Rule 22 (3) of CER - date of reply to SCN - whether the expression used ‘shall issue an order within a period of 30 days’ is mandatory or directory? - HELD THAT:- Rule 22 (3) of the Rules refers to two separate proceedings. One initiated by the taxpayer by submitting an application seeking cancellation of registration and the other by the proper officer by issuance of show cause notice for cancellation of the registration. The timeline provided for issuance of an order is 30 days for both the proceedings. If the intention was that the proper office would forfeit the right to pass an order, then an anomalous situation would arise with regard to proceedings where the taxpayer voluntarily applies for cancellation. If the proper officer, qua the said proceedings, also forfeits the right to issue an order, then the application seeking cancellation would be deemed to be rejected and the taxpayer would continue to remain registered despite his desire to seek cancellation of registration.
The expression ‘shall issue an order’ used in Rule 22 (3) of the Rules cannot be construed as mandatory for proceedings under Rule 21 and directory for proceedings under Rule 20. Accordingly, we hold that the expression “shall be passed within 30 days” used in Rule 22(3) of the Rules is not mandatory but is only directory.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that the authorities have lost the right to pass an order after the lapse of period of 30 days of the filing of the reply by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice issued under Rule 21 of the Rules.
The petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Proper Officer to expeditiously pass an order on the Show Cause Notice, preferably within a period of two weeks from today.
-
2024 (3) TMI 743 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty u/s 129 (3) of the GST Act - appellant/petitioner did not generate e-Way Bill with a view to evade tax - violation of provisions of the GST Act read with GST Rules - HELD THAT:- The e-Invoice in Form GST Invoice-I is auto populated / generated on the common platform after e- Invoice is uploaded on the said portal in the manner prescribed in the said Rules. Further Part-B of the e-Way bill has been uploaded after filing up the relevant details of the vehicle transporting the goods. In the facts of this case it is not disputed that the e-Way Bill contained the complete details in Part-A and Part-B. Most importantly once these documents are produced, statutory duty is cast upon the revenue authorities to verify the authenticity of the said documents. All the documents (soft copies/e-invoices & e-way bills) are in the official reach of the department. Hence, the verification is a very simple procedure which is required to be executed by the revenue authorities. Evidently in this case they failed to do so.
The case of the petitioner is consistent that the driver was carrying digital copies of the tax invoice as well as e-Way Bill on his mobile number. The Revenue did not verify the digital device of the driver. If the assessee always had relevant documents in his favour, it stands to reason that there was no cause for him not to provide the digital copy of the e-Way Bill to the driver when the goods were being transported. After the driver had produced the digital copy of the tax invoice, it was the responsibility of the revenue to verify the same from the portal. The portal also contains the e-Way Bill which is auto populated after the e-Invoice uploaded. Evidently the Revenue failed to do so. The revenue cannot fasten the penalty upon the tax payers for its own default.
The argument on behalf of the revenue to the effect that once the demand raised on the assessee was satisfied by making of payment, the assessee could not carry the order of penalty in appeal and is liable to be rejected - The assessee under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, 2017 has an option either to provide security or to make payment and satisfy the demand in full. However, the mere fact that the assessee has made payment will not disentitle him for carrying the order imposing the penalty in appeal.
Since all the documents have been admittedly produced before the authorities at the time of inspection, there was no cause for detention, seizure or imposition of the penalty as has been done by the authorities in this case - It is noteworthy that the revenue is not challenged the authenticity of the bills or the fact that they were not duly filled it or the details were absent in the said bills. No irregularity in the bills have been pointed out on behalf of the revenue.
The impugned order dated 04.01.2023 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-VII, Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.3/learned appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad are liable to be quashed and are quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 742 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - Classification of goods - Bike and Scooter seat cover - to be classified under CTH 87089900 or not - taxable at GST rate of 28% or not - HELD THAT:- The appellant has presented sufficient cause that prevented them from filing the appeal within the normal period. Therefore, the delay of 21 days beyond the normal time limit in filing the appeal is condonable as provided under the proviso to Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017. Further it is found that this authority is empowered vide Section 101(1) of the CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017 to pass such orders as deemed fit.
-
2024 (3) TMI 741 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Classification of supply of goods - Water including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing added sugar or sweetening matter, not flavoured (other than drinking water packed in 20 litre bottles) - to be classified under heading 2201 or not - HELD THAT:- The issue in the instant case requires a re-examination by the AAR, especially in view of the fact that a test report is now available in respect of a sample of the appellant themselves, and in view of the fact that such other documents like consent letter, process explanation, etc., have also been adduced by the appellant.
The interest of justice will be met by remanding the case to the lower authority, with a direction to re-visit the issue, take into cognizance the documents now available such as the test report, consent order, etc., and to pass necessary orders as per the provisions of law, after offering an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - The matter is remanded to the Lower Authority for re-examination and passing of appropriate fresh orders into the matter, after following the principles of natural justice.
-
2024 (3) TMI 740 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Scope of supply - transfer of title of goods by the Applicant to its customers or multiple transfers within the FTWZ - goods stored in FTWZ will be covered under the scope of Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017 or not - applicability of Integrated Tax (IGST) Circular No. 3/1/2018 dated 25.05.2018 - HELD THAT:- Since the Authority for Advance Ruling had erred in not answering the question raised by the Appellant in its entirety and also not discussed all the contentions of the Appellant put forth in their original application. Hence, justice will be met by remanding the case to the lower authority, with direction to consider the question raised by the Appellant in its entirety, to give findings on the other points raised by the Appellant and to offer them another opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the case as per the provisions of law. The AAR should examine afresh whether the activities proposed to be undertaken by the Appellant are covered by entry 8(a), 8(b) or any other entry in Schedule III of CGST Act, 2017 or otherwise. All aspects of the matter are kept open for decision by the AAR.
-
2024 (3) TMI 739 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU
Violation of principles of natural justice - failure to share documents and comments forwarded by DGGI, with the appellants - Rejection of application for Advance Ruling - Levy of GST - various fees collected by Tamil Nadu Medical Council, a Government Authority - HELD THAT:- The rejection of application for advance ruling in the instant case stems from the fact that an investigation initiated by DGGI against the appellant is pending on the same issue. This being the case, the advance ruling authority ought to have shared the new findings of DGGI that was lying before them, and discussed the same in detail, either during the personal hearing, or thereafter, before proceeding to finalise the case.
The principles of natural justice have not been followed in the instant case since the advance ruling authority had erred in not sharing the documents and comments forwarded by DGGI, with the appellants - the ends of justice will be met by restoring the application for advance ruling to its original position, by way of remanding the case to the lower authority, with a direction to forward the letter dated 03.04.2023 of DGGI alongwith its enclosures, if any, to the appellant enabling them to comment on the same, and to offer them another opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the case as per the provisions of law.
The matter is remanded to the Lower Authority for consideration and passing of appropriate orders, after following the principles of natural justice.
............
|
