2023 (3) TMI 374 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice (audi alterem partem) - petitioner submits that the order was passed without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT - It does not appear that there was any bona fide intention on the part of the petitioner to produce the documents as sought for. The petitioner went on buying time by submitting repeated requests for adjournment. The Order-in-Original was passed on September 14, 2021. Even thereafter the petitioner chose not to file the appeal within the prescribed period. The Corona Pandemic substantially ebbed in the year 2021 and as opportunity was given for virtual hearing, the petitioner ought to have availed the same. The conduct of the petitioner does not appear to be a bona fide one. At such a belated point of time, the Court is of the opinion that, the matter is not required to be remanded back to the authority for reconsideration. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Opportunity of hearing not provided to the petitioner.
2. Delay in responding to show cause notice due to the pandemic.
3. Request for remand of the matter for reconsideration.
4. Failure to file an appeal within the prescribed period.
5. Comparison with a similar case from the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
6. Lack of bona fide intention on the part of the petitioner.
7. Consideration of the impact of the pandemic on the petitioner's actions.
8. Decision on remanding the matter for reconsideration.

1. Opportunity of Hearing:
The petitioner contested an Order-in-Original issued by the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate, alleging that it was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that due to the prevailing pandemic situation, they were unable to participate in the personal hearing requested by the authority, citing health concerns and the unavailability of necessary details from their accountant.

2. Delay in Responding to Show Cause Notice:
The petitioner's response to the show cause notice was delayed, with the reply filed almost ten months after the notice was issued. Despite repeated opportunities for virtual hearings and adjournments, the petitioner failed to produce the required documents, leading to doubts about their bona fide intentions in complying with the proceedings.

3. Request for Remand:
The petitioner sought a remand of the matter for reconsideration, drawing parallels with a previous unreported order from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had remanded a case due to the petitioner's inability to participate effectively in the proceedings during the pandemic. However, the court noted that the circumstances in the present case were different, as the pandemic situation had improved by 2021, and virtual hearing opportunities were provided, which the petitioner did not utilize.

4. Failure to File Appeal:
Despite the provision to appeal the Order-in-Original within a specified period, the petitioner did not file an appeal within the prescribed time frame, leading to questions about the timeliness and diligence in pursuing legal remedies.

5. Comparison with Andhra Pradesh High Court Case:
The court considered the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in a similar case but highlighted the distinctions in the circumstances, emphasizing that the petitioner in the present case had opportunities for virtual hearings and failed to take advantage of them, indicating a lack of genuine effort to engage in the legal process.

6. Lack of Bona Fide Intention:
The court expressed doubts about the petitioner's bona fides, noting the repeated requests for adjournments and the failure to provide necessary documents despite multiple opportunities, suggesting a lack of genuine intent to cooperate with the proceedings.

7. Impact of the Pandemic:
While acknowledging the challenges posed by the pandemic, the court observed that by 2021, when the Order-in-Original was issued, the situation had improved, and virtual hearing options were available. The court evaluated the petitioner's actions in light of these circumstances and found them lacking in genuine effort to engage with the legal process.

8. Decision on Remanding the Matter:
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the matter did not warrant remand for reconsideration. The court determined that the petitioner's conduct, including the failure to file an appeal within the prescribed period, indicated a lack of commitment to the legal proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Calcutta High Court highlights the key issues raised by the petitioner, the court's assessment of the petitioner's actions and intentions, and the decision regarding the remand of the matter for further consideration.