2021 (7) TMI 1257 - HC - GST

Validity of three adjudication orders made passed exparte - challenge on account of the fact that for one tax period and for one dispute, there can only be a single adjudication order - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, three periods for which the orders had been passed are overlapping. Notice dated 22.12.2020 was issued by respondent no.2 for the period July 2017 to March 2018. It covers the entire period and dispute being sought to be adjudicated in the other two notices as well. At the same time, it is found that by notice dated 22.12.2020, next date fixed was 05.01.2021 but the petitioner could not participate in the same on account of the spread of pandemic COVID-19. Also, in that regard, it has been brought to our notice that realizing the difficulties from the spread of pandemic COVID-19, the Government had itself issued an order dated 01.05.2021 extending the period to submit reply and responses, up to 30.05.2021. Subsequently, it was extended up to 30.06.2021. In light of that fact, the order dated 09.06.2021 is clearly an ex-parte order, which has been passed without allowing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Orders quashed - Matters restored back.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to three orders dated 09.06.2021 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Jurisdictional issue regarding multiple adjudication orders for one tax period and dispute.
3. Validity of orders passed without allowing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner challenged three orders dated 09.06.2021 issued by respondent nos. 2 and 3 under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondent no. 2 issued two notices for different periods, while respondent no. 3 issued another notice for a separate period. The petitioner argued that for one tax period and dispute, only a single adjudication order should be issued. The High Court entertained the writ petition and granted time for completion of instructions.

Issue 2:
The High Court considered the jurisdictional issue of multiple adjudication orders for overlapping periods. It was noted that the notice issued by respondent no. 2 covered the entire disputed period, including the periods covered by the other two notices. The Court observed that the order dated 09.06.2021 was passed ex-parte without providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity of being heard. The Government's extension of the reply submission period due to the COVID-19 pandemic was also taken into account.

Issue 3:
In light of the jurisdictional and procedural irregularities, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing two orders and setting aside one. The orders dated 09.06.2021 for two periods were quashed, and the order for the remaining period was set aside and remitted to respondent no. 2 for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within a specified time frame, and further proceedings were to be conducted in accordance with the law to ensure a fair hearing.

Overall, the High Court addressed the challenge to the multiple orders, emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing, and upheld the principles of natural justice in the adjudication process under the GST Act.