2020 (12) TMI 1044 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such records of personal hearing was maintained, and at any rate no copies of the said record of personal hearing were sent to the petitioners - HELD THAT - Inasmuch as the procedure for maintaining a record of personal hearing was a formal one that was devised to take care of the compliance with the rules of natural justice during the period when the personal hearing had to be undertaken through video conferencing, taking note of the covid pandemic situation, the respondent Appellate Authority ought to have complied with the said procedure strictly. Inasmuch as in these cases, the said procedure was not complied, it is deemed appropriate to quash the impugned orders and direct the appellate authority to pass fresh orders after complying with the said procedure and after hearing the petitioners - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to maintain a record of personal hearing at the time of disposal of appeals.
2. Compliance with natural justice requirements during video conferencing appeals in the Covid-19 pandemic period.
3. Omission to send copies of the record of personal hearing to the petitioners.
4. Representation by a professional Chartered Accountant on behalf of the petitioners.
5. Acceptance of common written submissions for different categories of appellants.
6. Quashing of impugned orders and direction to pass fresh orders after compliance with the procedure.

Analysis:
1. The main issue raised in the Writ Petitions is the failure of the 2nd respondent to maintain a record of personal hearing during the disposal of appeals by the petitioners against orders of the original authority. The petitioners argue that the Appellate Authority was required to maintain such records, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic when appeals were conducted via video conferencing. The absence of these records and the failure to provide copies to the petitioners raised concerns regarding compliance with natural justice requirements.

2. The respondents, through a statement, acknowledged that the petitioners were indeed given an opportunity for personal hearing and were represented by a professional Chartered Accountant authorized by them. It was explained that due to the large number of cases handled by the authorized representative, the Appellate Authority heard the authorized person and accepted common written submissions for different categories of appellants. However, it was admitted that the record of personal hearing was unintentionally not sent to the petitioners, although argument notes submitted by the authorized representative were available.

3. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the procedure for maintaining a record of personal hearing was crucial to ensure compliance with the rules of natural justice, especially during the period when personal hearings were conducted through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Since the Appellate Authority failed to adhere to this procedure in the present cases, the court decided to quash the impugned orders. The court directed the Appellate Authority to pass fresh orders within two months, following the proper procedure and ensuring that the petitioners are given a fair hearing.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the court's decision to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair procedure in the context of appeals during the Covid-19 pandemic period.