Exide Industries Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
Delhi HC order period of limitation for passing the Order-in-Original in terms of Section 75(3) of CGST act, 2017, shall not apply in the case of repeated adjournments
The Court has perused the repeated personal hearing notices which have been issued. Clearly, there has been a laxity by the Petitioner.
However, the Respondent No. 1 also could have put the Petitioner to terms and not have passed a detailed order raising a substantial demand running into more than Rs.12 crores including the recovery of ineligible ITC and penalty of Rs.6,34,61,579/-.
Considering the fact that the Petitioner has not been afforded a hearing though some attempts were made by the Petitioner to thereafter approach the Respondent No. 1’s office, there would be breach of natural justice.
However, due to the laxity of the Petitioner, a sum of Rs.1 lakh is imposed as costs to be contributed to the Delhi High Court Bar Association.
The Petitioner shall be given a hearing by the Respondent No. 1. Proof of payment of costs shall be shown to the Adjudicating Authority. The hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner both on the portal as also through the ld. Counsel.
