9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 357 - HC - GSTPrinciples of natural justice - impugned Order of Assessment cum Penalty cum Interest passed by the First Respondent without affording reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner - HELD THAT - The petitioner received the notice for final hearing, dated 06.11.2019, by way of a registered post on 12.11.2019. Immediately thereafter, he contacted his Tax Consultant, who was at Hyderabad. The Tax Consultant informed him that it is not possible for him to come over from Hyderabad to Proddatur on a day s notice, as he has to adjust his work. So he himself prepared an adjournment letter informing the facts and sought 15 days time for attending the hearing. The petitioner went to the office of respondent No.1 on 13.11.2019 in the afternoon but the officer was not present. He stayed there and met the officer before the closing hours, who informed that the impugned order has already been passed. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that deciding the matter without hearing the petitioner amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be brushed aside. Even assuming that the notice was sent by e-mail, we feel that the petitioner should have been given some more time so as to enable him to engage a counsel, who can present his case well before the concerned authority, more so, having regard to the background in which he is placed. The matter is remanded back to the authority with a direction that the same shall be decided on or before 15.12.2020 after hearing the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing an order without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and attend a personal hearing. Analysis: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against the impugned Order of Assessment cum Penalty cum Interest passed by the First Respondent under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the Final Hearing Notice was served on 12.11.2019, and the order was passed before the closing hours of 13.11.2019, depriving them of a fair opportunity to present their case. The petitioner contended that they went to the office on 13.11.2019, but the order had already been passed. The counter filed disputed this, stating that the notice was sent by e-mail on 07.11.2019, giving the petitioner ample time to file objections and represent their case on 13.11.2019. The petitioner received the notice by registered post on 12.11.2019, contacted their Tax Consultant, and sought an adjournment due to the short notice, but the order was already passed when they visited the office. The court acknowledged the violation of natural justice principles and set aside the order, remanding the matter back to the authority for a decision after hearing the petitioner on or before 15.12.2020 without issuing a fresh notice. The court found that deciding the matter without hearing the petitioner indeed amounted to a violation of natural justice principles. Even if the notice was sent by e-mail, the petitioner should have been given more time to engage legal representation considering the circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case effectively before the authority. Consequently, the order under challenge was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the authority with a directive to decide the issue after hearing the petitioner on or before 15.12.2020. The court specified that no fresh notice should be issued to the petitioner regarding the date of the hearing. The Writ Petition was allowed and remanded, with no order as to costs, and any pending Miscellaneous Petitions in the case were to stand closed.
|
