The Associated Chambers Of ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5298 Del

         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

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

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

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