2020 (11) TMI 526 - HC - GST

Principles of Natural Justice - opportunity of hearing not provided - primary contention is that before passing Ext.P14 series of orders, the petitioner was not heard - whether there was actually a hearing extended to the petitioner or not? - HELD THAT - Inasmuch as the impugned orders were passed without hearing the petitioner, the said orders cannot be legally sustained inasmuch as they have been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P14 series of orders and direct the 7th respondent to pass fresh orders in lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioner. I also make it clear that the 7th respondent shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction, and the orders passed by him shall reflect a consideration of each of those objections raised by the petitioner on jurisdiction, as well as on the merits of the case. The 7th respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Lack of hearing before passing orders under GST Act, violation of rules of natural justice, quashing of orders, direction for fresh orders, consideration of objections on jurisdiction and merits, timeline for passing fresh orders.

In this case, the petitioner approached the High Court aggrieved by a series of orders passed against him under the GST Act without being heard. The primary contention was the lack of a hearing before passing the orders, which would violate the rules of natural justice. The court enquired about the hearing extended to the petitioner and found that while notices were issued for a personal hearing, the officer proceeded to consider the petitioner's reply and pass final orders without granting a further opportunity for a hearing. The court heard both parties and concluded that the impugned orders were passed without hearing the petitioner, thus cannot be legally sustained due to the violation of natural justice rules.

The High Court quashed the series of orders and directed the 7th respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner. The court specifically instructed the 7th respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction. It was emphasized that the fresh orders must reflect a consideration of each objection raised by the petitioner on jurisdiction and the merits of the case. A timeline of three months was set for the 7th respondent to pass the fresh orders. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 7th respondent either physically or through video conferencing to facilitate the process.