NAPA's order quashed by the High Court as all members signing the order were not present for hearing
[Hardcastle Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v.Union of India.- [2019] 110 taxmann.com 410 (Bombay)]
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) ruled that the assessee derived profit of Rs. 7.49
crores through price increase. NAPA passed the order where one technical member, who had joined the bench after conclusion of hearing, also signed the order along with three other members who had heard the parties. The assessee filed a writ petition against NAPA's order.
The High Court observed that the assessee was entitled to be heard by all members who were the ultimate decision-makers so that it could try to convince each member of the Authority. The High Court, thus, set aside the order passed by NAPA and held that order resulted in the violation of the principles of natural justice when the fourth member joined only for signing the order and did not participate in the hearing.
[Hardcastle Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v.Union of India.- [2019] 110 taxmann.com 410 (Bombay)]
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAPA) ruled that the assessee derived profit of Rs. 7.49
crores through price increase. NAPA passed the order where one technical member, who had joined the bench after conclusion of hearing, also signed the order along with three other members who had heard the parties. The assessee filed a writ petition against NAPA's order.
The High Court observed that the assessee was entitled to be heard by all members who were the ultimate decision-makers so that it could try to convince each member of the Authority. The High Court, thus, set aside the order passed by NAPA and held that order resulted in the violation of the principles of natural justice when the fourth member joined only for signing the order and did not participate in the hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment