Case Details: ILA Biomarine (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 35 Centax 108 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
- Sukrut Mhatre, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Karan Adik & Ms Sangeeta Yadav, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by a successor officer without being granted a personal hearing. The facts reveal that the original officer had issued a show cause notice and conducted preliminary proceedings, but the successor officer passed the final order without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner submitted that this violated the principles of natural justice and undermined the concept of a fair judicial or quasi-judicial hearing. Reliance was placed on Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the impugned order was set aside, observing that a successor officer cannot decide the matter based on hearings of the predecessor. The Court noted that such divided responsibility undermines the principles of natural justice. It further held that the petitioner need not be relegated to avail an alternate remedy under the statute and directed that the show cause notice be restored for fresh adjudication before the concerned authority. The impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Cited
- Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Assn. v. Designated Authority — 2011 (263) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 8]
- Gullapalli Nageshwara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation — AIR 1959 SCC 308 — Relied on [Para 7]
- Rashid Javed v. State of U.P. — (2017) 7 SCC 781 — Relied on [Para 7]
- Union of India v. Shiv Raj — (2014) 6 SCC 564 — Relied on [Para 8]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 5-8-2003 [Para 9]
