2023 (3) TMI 934 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of the same being barred by limitation - ex-parte order - opportunity of hearing not provided - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie , it is opined that the order is bad in law. This is for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences; (c) It is also found that the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances. All issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even if the proceedings were ex parte in nature. The present writ petition is disposed off in the mutually agreeable terms.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks writ for quashing order dated 19.10.2022 and direction to consider appeal; rejection of appeal on limitation ground; violation of natural justice principles; order passed ex parte without sufficient reasons; disposal of writ petition on grounds of violation of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner prayed for a writ to quash the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the authorities, which rejected the appeal against the order dated 01.02.2021. The rejection was based on the ground of being time-barred. The Revenue's counsel agreed to remand the matter for a fresh decision without the limitation hindrance and assured a fair consideration on merits without coercive actions during the case. However, the court found that despite statutory remedies, interference was justified if the order was legally flawed. The court noted violations of natural justice principles as the petitioner was not given adequate time for a fair hearing, and the ex parte order lacked sufficient reasons to determine the amount due from the assessee. The authorities failed to address all factual and legal issues even in an ex parte proceeding.

The court, based on the mentioned grounds, disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders. It was directed that a percentage of the total amount must be deposited for the appeal to be heard, with an additional deposit required within a specified period. The petitioner's bank account was ordered to be unfrozen, and the petitioner was required to cooperate in the proceedings without unnecessary delays. The Assessing Authority was instructed to decide the case on merits, affording all parties a fair hearing and passing a speaking order with reasons provided. The liberty to challenge the order and pursue other legal remedies was reserved for both parties, emphasizing expeditious resolution and digital proceedings if feasible.

The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving all issues open for further legal recourse. The judgment was concluded with the hope that future legal actions would be handled promptly and in accordance with the law. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of, with the respondents' counsel tasked with communicating the order electronically to the appropriate authority.