2022 (10) TMI 45 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - adverse report was not furnished to the appellant - effective opportunity of hearing was not granted to the appellant by the appellate authority - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Admittedly, as against the impugned order as on date there is no other remedy available under the Act since the Tribunal has not been constituted. Therefore, the appellant had to necessarily approach the learned writ court for challenging the said order - when such is the position, the learned writ court would have to examine as to the correctness of the order passed by the appellate authority as the writ petition is the first judicial forum, which will test the correctness of the order passed by the statutory appellate authority. If there is an adverse report drawing certain conclusions against the appellant, then such material should be furnished to the appellant so as to enable to put forth the contentions and place all relevant facts. It appears that the representation given to the appellate authority on 19.07.2022 has not been considered and the copy of the adverse report has not been furnished. The appellant should be directed to pay a portion of the liability to be entitled to fresh opportunity of hearing. The appellant is also directed to pay the concerned authority a sum of Rs. 15 lacs within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order dismissing the writ petition.
2. Allegation of adverse report not furnished to the appellant.
3. Claim of lack of effective opportunity of hearing.
4. Examination of correctness of the order passed by the appellate authority.
5. Granting of one more opportunity to the appellant with conditions.
6. Direction for payment of a portion of the liability for fresh opportunity of hearing.
7. Requirement for cooperation with the proceedings before the appellate authority.

Analysis:

1. The High Court heard an intra-Court appeal against the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the Senior Joint Commissioner. The Single Judge opined that as it was the second round of litigation and the order was a speaking one, no interference was warranted.

2. The appellant contended that the appellate authority relied on an adverse report not provided to them despite a representation dated 19.07.2022. It was argued that no effective opportunity of hearing was granted.

3. The State's counsel stated that the appeal was heard on three days, providing sufficient opportunity for the appellant. However, the Court noted that the representation dated 19.07.2022 was not considered, and the adverse report was not furnished to the appellant.

4. The Court emphasized the importance of examining the correctness of the appellate authority's order, as the writ petition was the first judicial forum to test its validity. It was deemed necessary for the appellant to have access to any adverse report to present their contentions effectively.

5. A further opportunity was granted to the appellant with a direction for the appellate authority to provide the adverse report, subject to the appellant paying a portion of the liability. The appellant was directed to pay Rs. 15 lacs within six weeks to be entitled to a fresh hearing.

6. The conditions set required the appellant to cooperate with the proceedings before the appellate authority and not seek further adjournments to ensure a fair and expedited process.

7. The Court disposed of the appeal with the mentioned observations, highlighting the necessity for compliance with the set conditions and cooperation with the appellate authority for the resolution of the matter.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, outlining the Court's considerations and directions for the parties involved.