Electra Power Transmission Systsems Vs Commissioner Delhi GST

Electra Power Transmission Systems Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for disposal. The impugned order records that the reply/documents submitted by the taxpayer were found unsatisfactory and, despite sufficient and repeated opportunities, the taxpayer did not appear for a personal hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had indeed appeared before the concerned authority; however, since a large number of matters were listed on the same day before the proper officer and no record of appearance is maintained, the impugned order inaccurately records that the petitioner did not appear. 

He further submits that a reply was submitted, but due to an error in the office of the petitioner, the annexures to the reply, although mentioned in the reply, could not be uploaded. He prays that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to upload the supporting documents, including the invoices, payment proof, etc., and also requests an opportunity for a personal appearance to present their case. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the principles of natural justice demand that the petitioner be given a fair chance to present their evidence and defend their case adequately. It is contended that the procedural lapse on the part of the petitioner’s office, which led to the non-uploading of critical annexures, should not be held against the petitioner, especially when these documents are vital for establishing the petitioner’s compliance and legitimacy of their claims. 

The counsel emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing, which includes the right to be heard and the right to present evidence. In light of these submissions, it is prayed that the court may consider setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the proper officer with directions to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to submit all necessary documents and to appear for a personal hearing. 

This would ensure that the petitioner’s case is adjudicated upon based on a comprehensive review of all relevant materials and that justice is served in a manner consistent with the principles of fairness and equity. The learned counsel for the respondents, while accepting the notice, does not raise any substantial objection to the grant of such an opportunity to the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents would not be averse to the matter being remanded for reconsideration, provided the petitioner complies with the requisite procedural requirements and timelines for submission of the documents and personal appearance. 

Taking into consideration the submissions of both parties, the court finds merit in the petitioner’s plea for an opportunity to present the necessary documents and to be heard in person. It is well-established that the denial of an adequate opportunity to present one’s case can result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the court deems it appropriate to allow the petitioner’s request. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the proper officer with directions to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to submit all supporting documents, including invoices and payment proofs, and to appear for a personal hearing. The proper officer is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, specifying the date and time for the personal hearing and the deadline for the submission of documents. The petitioner is also directed to ensure that all relevant documents are submitted within the specified timeframe and to appear for the personal hearing as scheduled. 

The court emphasizes that this opportunity should be utilized by the petitioner to present a comprehensive and substantiated case, ensuring that all procedural requirements are duly met. This order is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and is intended solely to ensure that the principles of natural justice are upheld and that the petitioner is afforded a fair opportunity to present their case. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the proper officer to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner shall file all the relevant invoices and the supporting documents within a period of two weeks from today. The proper officer shall then re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice after giving the petitioner an opportunity for personal appearance. It is imperative that the principles of natural justice are upheld by ensuring that the petitioner is given a fair chance to present their case with all pertinent documents and evidence. The petitioner contends that the previous order was issued without a comprehensive review of all submitted materials, due to an unfortunate oversight in their office which led to the non-uploading of crucial annexures that were referenced in their initial reply. 

This procedural lapse, the petitioner argues, should not be the basis for a final adjudication against them, especially when the annexures are pivotal to demonstrating their compliance and the legitimacy of their claims. The court acknowledges the importance of procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing. The opportunity to submit all necessary documents and appear personally is a fundamental aspect of ensuring justice is served correctly. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to submit all relevant invoices, payment proofs, and any other supporting documents within the specified two-week period. Following this submission, the proper officer is instructed to schedule a personal hearing for the petitioner, providing adequate notice of the date and time for this hearing. This step is crucial to ensure that the petitioner’s case is re-evaluated comprehensively and fairly. 

The court also emphasizes that this order is issued without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party. It has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contentions of the petitioner or the respondents. The court’s decision to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for re-adjudication is based solely on procedural grounds to uphold the principles of natural justice. Both parties retain all their rights and contentions, which will be duly considered during the re-adjudication process. The proper officer is directed to handle the re-adjudication expeditiously, ensuring that all procedural requirements are met and that the petitioner is given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present their case in full. The petitioner is also advised to utilize this opportunity to provide a complete and substantiated case, ensuring that all documents and evidence are accurately and promptly submitted. The court trusts that this approach will lead to a fair and just resolution of the matter, with due regard to the legal rights and obligations of both parties involved. The petition is thus disposed of in the above terms, with the proper officer’s re-adjudication expected to be conducted in a manner that upholds the integrity of the legal process and the principles of natural justice.

Download PDF:
Electra Power Transmission Systsems            

For reference visit:
Delhi High Court 

Read another case law:
GST Case Law