The issue to be decided was whether the officer responsible for issuing the impugned order failed to grant the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. Denying the petitioner a chance to present their case in person undermines the principles of natural justice, which mandate a fair and unbiased procedure.
The relevant facts are that the notices of default assessment of tax and interest and notices of assessment of penalty, all dated 29.09.2014, were issued under Section 32 and Section 33 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter ‘the DVAT Act’) by the respondents. The petitioner filed its objections to the default assessments on 19.11.2014. Thereafter, the recovery of demand was W.P. (C) 12911/2019 Page 2 of 3 stayed upon the payment of ₹23,00,000/- on 12.08.2015.
The petitioner counsel Sujit Ghosh, Mannat Waraich, Shubh Dixit & Ms. Ajinkya Tiwari, contended that the time gap between the hearings and the final order, coupled with the change in the adjudicating officer, compromises the fairness of the legal process. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted a violation of the principles of natural justice, as Ms. Shilpa Shinde, the officer passing the impugned order, did not personally hear the petitioner during the proceedings.
Satyakam, representing the respondent, did not contest the petitioner’s status. The petitioner argued that the contested order is void, rendering the Department’s option to take action against them time-barred. However, Satyakam, the counsel, did not insist on pursuing this particular argument.
The Delhi High Court Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bhakaru and Amit Mahajan granted approval to the current petition, nullifying the contested order in a Delhi Value Added Tax (DVAT) case.
The case was thus remanded to the Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) for a fresh decision, with explicit instructions to ensure an impartial process. The court mandated the OHA to conclude the proceedings within four months, underscoring the need for a swift resolution. The ruling also preserved all rights and contentions related to the case’s merits.
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
