AAACORP EXM INDIA PVT LTD FORMALY KNOWN AS M/S AISHWARYA PLAST EXPORTS PVT LTD V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY

SCA/19448/2018

AI Insights

AAACORP EXM INDIA PVT LTD, formerly known as M/S AISHWARYA PLAST EXPORTS PVT LTD, filed a petition challenging an order issued by the Union of India through the Secretary, which was related to the recovery of short paid central excise duty. The petitioners argued that the order was non-speaking and violated the principles of natural justice because the adjudicating authority did not deal with the cited precedents in detail. However, the court found that the precedents were noted and considered, and the order was reasoned and not arbitrary. The court also emphasized that the existence of a statutory appeal precluded the need for judicial intervention under Article 226.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 821068 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Raviyashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad, State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh, Dattani and Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadilal Gases Ltd., Vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NOS 1 2
• Assessee Lawyers: DHAVAL SHAH
• Keywords: Non-speaking order; Statutory Appeal; Breach of principle of natural justice; Short paid central excise duty
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/19448/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19448 of 2018 ====================================== AAACORP EXM INDIA PVT LTD FORMALY KNOWN AS M/S AISHWARYA PLAST EXPORTS PVT LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY ====================================== Appearance: MR DHAVAL SHAH(2354) for the PETITIONER Nos. 1, 2 for the RESPONDENT Nos. 1, 2 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Date : 20/12/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI) 1. The petitioners by way of this petition challenged the order passed by the respondent no.2 herein being order in Original No. VAD­ EXUCS­001­COM­10­11­12­13­14­18­19 dated 17th May 2018 on the ground that the order is non­speaking order and it is passed in breach of principle of natural justice. 2. The petitioners were issued five show cause notices and pursuant to it the petitioners appeared before the Commissioner, Central GST And Central Excise, Vadodara – I, who after hearing the petitioners passed detail reasoned order confirming the demand and ordering recovery of short paid central excise duty as mentioned in all the show cause notices. Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/19448/2018 ORDER 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the adjudicating authority has passed the order in violation of principle of natural justice on the ground that though the precedents were cited before him and it has been referred during the course of recording the contentions of the petitioners, however it has not been dealt with in detail and hence it committed breach of principle of natural justice entitling the petitioners to have fresh hearing. 4. We are not impressed by such argument as at para­39 of the order impugned, the relevant case laws, which have been cited on behalf of the petitioners have been noted, referred and in para­40, it has been concluded that they are dissimilar and not comparable with the facts of the case determined by the Adjudicating Authority. In fact, it can not be successfully argued that the order impugned is passed in breach of principle of natural justice on that ground. Even if those precedents have been brushed aside as contended by the learned advocate for the petitioners in one line, may also not lead to conclude that the order is passed in breach of principle of natural justice. While passing the detail reasoned order on merit as well as after considering the precedents cited before the authority, it can never be said that it is unreasoned order or an order passed in breach of principle of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited four decisions to contend that “....Every State action may be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is arbitrary......” He has relied on following four decisions. (1) Reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 in case of Raviyashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad. (2) Reported in (2004) 1 SCC 547 in case of State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh. (3) Reported in MANU/GJ/0702/2013 in case of Dattani and Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/19448/2018 ORDER Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer. (4) Reported in 2016 (332) ELT 625 (Guj.) in case of Vadilal Gases Ltd., Vs. Union of India. As such, there is no quarrel on the principles laid down in those decisions and we are satisfied that the decision of the Adjudicating Authority is not unreasoned. Therefore, the precedents cited by the learned advocate for the petitioners is not helpful to him to contend that the order is passed in breach of principle of natural justice. 6. Though the statutory authorities are bound to follow the binding precedents, non­consideration or non­dealing with it in detail may call for serious attention, but nonetheless the decision reached after considering those precedents cannot be said to be illegal on that ground. More particularly, when there is a statutory appeal provided under the Act, filing of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court on such a plea cannot be entertained. We are satisfied from the reasons recorded by the Adjudicating Authority even consideration of precedents cited on behalf of the petitioners by him is also apparent from the order. 7. Hence, the present petition is not required to be entertained more particularly when efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal is available to the petitioners. Therefore, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) (UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) AMAR RATHOD... Page 3 of 3 "