2023 (6) TMI 292 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of Natural Justice (audi alterem partem) - no opportunity of personal hearing granted before passing the impugned order - HELD THAT - In the impugned order dated 02.12.2022, it is seen that the notice has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has also submitted his reply and thereafter enquiry has been conducted. The request of the dealer is seen to be not capable for consideration and that finding is recorded after considering the materials produced by the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is aggrieved due to any omission committed on the part of the respondent authority, there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders by way of filing revision/ appeal before the competent authority. This is a fit case which should be considered for lack of opportunity in compliance of the principles of natural justice. Sufficient opportunity is given to the petitioner - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the lack of following the principles of natural justice and the availability of alternative remedies for challenging the impugned orders.

Principle of Natural Justice:
The petitioner filed Writ Petitions seeking to quash the orders on the grounds of not following the principle of natural justice and lack of personal hearing. The petitioner claimed that the respondent did not consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited in support of the claim. However, the impugned order shows that notice was given to the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted a reply. An enquiry was conducted, and the finding was made after considering the materials produced by the petitioner. The court found that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, and it was not a fit case to be considered for lack of opportunity in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Availability of Alternative Remedy:
The judgment also highlighted that even if the petitioner was aggrieved by any omission on the part of the respondent authority, there was an effective alternative remedy available. The petitioner could challenge the impugned orders by filing a revision or appeal before the competent authority. The court emphasized the existence of this alternative remedy for the petitioner to address any grievances regarding the impugned orders.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity, and there was an alternative remedy available for challenging the impugned orders.