IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 28.10.2014
W.P.(C) 7330/2014 & CM 17131/2014
THE ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
OF INDIA (ASSOCHAM) ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 7332/2014 & CM 17132/2014
THE ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
OF INDIA (ASSOCHAM) ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in these cases:
For the Petitioner : Mr J.K.Mittal, Mr Rajveer Singh and Ms Devya Sharma.
For the Respondents : Mr Rahul Kaushik for respondent Nos.2 & 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The original file has also been produced by the respondents. On going through WP(C)s 7330/2014 & 7332/2014 Page 1 of 4 the same, we find that part hearing was granted by the respondents on 29.01.2014. Further hearing was deferred on account of the pendency of the writ petition before this court. Thereafter, a hearing notice was issued for 21.05.2014. According to the respondents the petitioner was not represented on that date and, therefore, no personal hearing took place. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 was not present in the office and it is for that reason that the hearing did not take place. We cannot comment on the issue as to whether a hearing took place or did not take place in view of the fact that there is no official noting on what transpired on that date.
2. In any event, a subsequent hearing notice was issued fixing 27.06.2014 as the date of hearing. On that date also, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no hearing was granted. Insofar as the respondents are concerned, they say that the petitioner did not turn up for hearing on that date. This fact is also not evidenced by any noting in the official record. On the other hand there is a handwritten letter dated 27.06.2014, a copy of which is placed at page 63 of the paper book, issued by the counsel for the petitioner and received at the Dak Counter of the Service Tax Commissionerate on 27.06.2014 itself. As per that letter, it is apparent that WP(C)s 7330/2014 & 7332/2014 Page 2 of 4 the petitioner's advocate was present at the Commissionerate but no hearing was granted.
3. It is an admitted position that after 26.06.2014 no hearing was granted to the petitioner and the impugned orders dated 25.08.2014 and 29.08.2014 were issued. The order dated 25.08.2014 is in respect of show cause notice dated 15.10.2010 and the order dated 29.08.2014 is in respect of the two show cause notices dated 24.10.2011 and 18.10.2012.
4. In view of the fact that only a part hearing was granted on 29.01.2014 and no further hearing was granted to the petitioner after that and the impugned orders have been passed in the absence of any such hearing, the impugned orders have to be set aside because of the violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside.
5. In order to obviate any further controversy on the subject of hearing we direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.4 for hearing on 12.11.2014 at 11.30 a.m. All the requisite information sought by the respondent No.4 shall be made available to the respondent No.4 by the petitioner's representative/advocate on that date. The petitioner shall not WP(C)s 7330/2014 & 7332/2014 Page 3 of 4 seek any adjournment. After giving a full hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 shall expeditiously pass adjudication orders in accordance with law. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J OCTOBER 28, 2014 mk WP(C)s 7330/2014 & 7332/2014 Page 4 of 4