Request of personal hearing must be considered before passing an order

Case Details:

Issue- In the above case, the petitioner had replied to the Show Cause Notice seeking additional time for furnishing a detailed reply and an opportunity of personal hearing. Further, a reminde was issued to the Petitioner providing a final opportunity for personal hearing. Pursuant to the said reminder, Petitioner had replied to the reminder seeking time to furnish reply and time to appear for personal hearing. However, the impugned order does not take into consideration the request submitted by the Petitioner for extension of time and is a cryptic order.

Held – Though in terms of Section 75 (5) of the Act three adjournments maybe granted, it is not mandatory for the proper officer to grant three adjournments. Adjournment is not a right. Said provisions empowers the proper officer to grant upto three adjournments, if sufficient cause is shown. It would be dependent on the facts of each case whether sufficient cause has been shown or not for exercise of the discretion to adjourn. It was held that in the present case the order is a cryptic order and a prayer is made on behalf of petitioner for one opportunity to file reply, accordingly we set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 and the show cause notice is remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication.