Page 164 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

674 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 34
principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. The
Appellant understand that the Department’s comments in the
present case had agreed to the submissions of the Appellant
that ITC is available to the Appellant. However, neither any
reference has been made to the Department’s comments nor
any discussion has been made in the impugned ruling in this
regard.
(b) Section 98 of the Act mandates Advance Ruling Authority to
act in a fair and reasonable manner and adhere to the princi-
ple of natural justice. The Ld. Advance Ruling Authority is
required to provide all the material before it and relied upon
it determining the fate of the application filed by the Appel-
lant. However, in the present case, despite specifically re-
questing a copy of comments furnished by the Deputy Excise
and Taxation Commissioner, Rewari, the same was not
granted to the Appellant and the impugned ruling was
passed without even referring to the said comments with a
premeditated mind. Reliance has been placed on Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Orkay Silk Mills Limited &
Others v. M.S. Bindra & Others, 1988 (33) E.L.T. 48 wherein it
was held that :
“It is necessary to reiterate that the quasi-judicial authorities ex-
ercising powers under the Act should remember that not only
justice should be done but the parties who are affected by the
adverse order should have a feeling that justice has been done
to them. It is not enough for any authority to assert that justice is
done without there being a show of justice. The rules of natural
justice are not empty formalities but must be observed to re-
move any feeling in the mind of the party adversely affected
that his cause was not considered. The manner in which the re-
spondent No. 1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order
leaves an apprehension in the mind that the whole process was
pre-determined. Such a feeling would destroy the confidence
not only of the citizens but also of the Courts in quasi-judicial
authorities.”
(c) Advance Ruling Authority ought to have discussed or at least
referred to the submissions made by the appellant and the
categorical admission of the Departments representative that
the input tax credit on transportation services received by the
Appellant is available. During the course of hearing, the De-
partments representative upon considering the submissions
made by the Appellant conceded to the fact that input tax
credit of tax paid on transportation services is available in the
present case.
(d) The Advance ruling authority being a quasi-judicial authority
is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner and with-
out a premeditated mind. It is submitted that in the present
case, the Ld. Advance Ruling Authority has relied upon ex-
traneous material to determine the questions raised by the
Appellant in its application dated l6-4-2018 before the Ad-

GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  260