2020 (2) TMI 1238 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - order passed beyond jurisdiction in terms of Section 39, 46, 47 and 50 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - notice in form GSTR-3A not issued - liability of interest under Section 50 of the Act - HELD THAT - It is found that the order to be not assigning any reasons whatsoever - Also, prior to passing of the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the writ-petitioner. As such, there was gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing of the impugned order, which is hereby quashed with the certain directions - Petitioner shall appear before the appropriate authority on 28.01.2020, whereafter the proceedings shall commence afresh, affording opportunity of proper hearing to the petitioner, also enabe to place on record additional material, if so required/desired and only thereafter the officer shall pass a fresh order assigning reason, in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order without assigning reasons or providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought relief through a writ to quash an order and a notice of demand issued under the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners argued that the impugned order and consequential notice of demand violated the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions of the Act. The High Court found merit in the petitioners' claim, noting that the impugned order did not provide any reasons and the petitioner was not given a hearing before its issuance. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and provided specific directions for further proceedings.

The High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the appropriate authority on a specified date to commence the proceedings afresh. The authority was instructed to provide a proper hearing to the petitioner and allow the submission of additional material if necessary. The fresh order to be passed must include sufficient reasons as per the law. The Court also mandated that a copy of the order be given to the petitioner for review and potential further legal action if needed. Emphasizing cooperation, the Court instructed the petitioner not to seek adjournments and set a timeline of three months for the matter's resolution, leaving all issues open for consideration.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on upholding the principles of natural justice by quashing the impugned order due to the lack of reasons and absence of a hearing for the petitioner. The Court's detailed directions ensured a fair and transparent process for the petitioner in the subsequent proceedings, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons and opportunities for parties to present their case effectively.