TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tipulated in Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the SGST Act. Therefore, appeal was dismissed on account of delay. Non affording of opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- Although Section 107(4) and (8) of the SGST Act provides provision for opportunity of hearing to the appellant and if it is seen in juxtaposition, then it appears that opportunity of hearing is required to be given to an appellant who files appeal. In the present context, notice of hearing dated 17-02-2020 (Annexure P/5) and different e-mails dated 18-05-2020, 26-10-2020 and 24-11-2020 indicate that petitioner had filed the written submissions in the pending appeal for perusal of authority and for record purpose before the appellate authority. Petitioner did not press for hearing, rather pressed for consideration of written submissions and tried to press for hearing on 28.11.2020, when final order was passed. Understandably, petitioner wanted early decision so that issue of release of attached vehicle be resolved - from the record, it appears that pre-decisional hearing was afforded to the petitioner and petitioner filed written submissions also in the pending appeal for perusal and for record purpose. Therefore, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply the goods to M/s Prakash Asphalting and Tolls Highway India Ltd. in State of Madhya Pradesh but inadvertently and erroneously generated the Tax Invoice in the name of unit registered at Uttar Pradesh. During transportation of goods, respondent No.3 detained the goods as well as vehicle of the transporter on the ground that place of supply mentioned in the E-way bill is different from the actual place of receiver and therefore, imposed penalty alleging suppression of sales and seized vehicle of the transporter vide order dated 02-07-2019 by the office of Joint Commissioner, Anti Evasion Bureau, Gwalior (Commercial Tax Department of Madhya Pradesh). 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02-07-2019, petitioner preferred appeal under Section 107 of M.P. Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the SGST Act ) on 16-12-2019 before appellate authority on different grounds as referred in the appeal. Appeal was barred by time because period of limitation to file first appeal according to Section 107 of the SGST Act is three months and the period for which the delay may be condoned is 30 days from the expiry of normal period of limitation. Thus, appeal was dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereas the goods were seized at Morena and therefore this error of petitioner clearly invokes Section 129 of the CGST Act which deserves no interference. Intention of petitioner can only be gathered through its conduct only. Since Section 129 of the CGST Act does not contemplate distinction between inadvertent and advertent error, therefore, authorities were right in invoking Section 129 of the CGST Act against the petitioner. 10. It is further submitted that during enquiry, driver of the vehicle made the statement that delivery of goods is to be made at Morena (M.P.) and not at Jhansi (U.P.) whereas the documents were for transportation of goods from Maharashtra to Uttar Pradesh. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner before passing the impugned order dated 02-07-2019. 11. After passing of impugned order dated 02-07-2019, petitioner had to file the appeal within stipulated period as provided in Section 107 of the SGST Act but it did not file the same within the stipulated period and therefore, case was duly considered on the basis of written submissions made by him and vide email dated 24-09-2020 (1:20 pm) (Annexure P/8) petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition, then it appears that opportunity of hearing is required to be given to an appellant who files appeal. In the present context, notice of hearing dated 17-02-2020 (Annexure P/5) and different e-mails dated 18-05-2020, 26-10-2020 and 24-11-2020 indicate that petitioner had filed the written submissions in the pending appeal for perusal of authority and for record purpose before the appellate authority. Petitioner did not press for hearing, rather pressed for consideration of written submissions and tried to press for hearing on 28.11.2020, when final order was passed. Understandably, petitioner wanted early decision so that issue of release of attached vehicle be resolved. 17. E-mail dated 26-10-2020 (Annexure P/7) and e-mail dated 24- 11-2020 are reproduced for ready reference: E-mail dated 26-10-2020. This is in regard to the above captioned matter, wherein I have filed an appeal before your goodself against the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by Shri R S Rajpoot, State Tax Officer. The said appeal is pending since 16.12.2019 for final adjudication. On 17.02.2020, the undersign has received a notice for hearing wherein next date of hearing is mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pending appeal for perusal and for record purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner does not get any opportunity of hearing. 19. Appeal got dismissed on the point of limitation as preliminary ground for rejection of appeal and admittedly, petitioner filed appeal belatedly. Therefore, for personal hearing appellate authority could not have waited for normalcy to resume. On the basis of written submissions and record available, appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 28-11-2020 which is otherwise also stands to judicial scrutiny. 20. In relation to scope of personal hearing, the Apex Court in the case of Carborundum Universal Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 462 held that personal hearing in every situation is not necessary and there can be compliance with the requirements of natural justice of hearing when a right to represent is given and the decision is made on a consideration thereof. Later on, in the case of Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -I and Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 151 , Apex Court considered various judgments passed in respect of rules of natural justice and held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on. 39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straight-jacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling it is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
