2023 (7) TMI 250 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - period of limitation to file that appeal has expired - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Neither on the general rule of natural justice applicable to these proceedings nor in the context of section 75(4) of the Act, the course adopted by the adjudicating authority, was permissible - rules of natural justice have been flouted, absolutely. Once date had been fixed and communicated to the petitioner both for the purpose of filing written reply and for the purpose of oral hearing, no adjudication order may have been passed before that date arrived. Rule of fairness must prevail to ensure that the needs and requirement of justice are met. To ensure due compliance, writ Court may always and in the present facts, does feel compelled to interfere. Matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law, necessarily involving adequate opportunity of hearing being granted to the petitioner, both for the purpose of filing written reply as also of personal hearing - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to adjudication order dated 31.5.2021; Appealability of the order; Expiry of period of limitation for appeal; Violation of natural justice principles; Flouting of rules of natural justice.

Adjudication Order Challenge:
The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 31.5.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-10 Prayagraj against them.

Appealability and Limitation:
The order was found to be appealable, but the period of limitation to file the appeal had expired.

Violation of Natural Justice:
Despite objections raised by the Standing Counsel, it was noted that there was a fundamental issue regarding the rights of the petitioner and the general scheme of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The Court found that the adjudicating authority had violated natural justice principles by passing the impugned order before the dates fixed for reply and personal hearing.

Flouting of Rules:
The Court observed that the rules of natural justice had been flouted as the adjudication order was passed before the scheduled dates for reply and oral hearing, which was not permissible under the law.

Decision and Remittance:
The Court overruled the objections raised by the Standing Counsel and set aside the order dated 31.5.2021. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring adequate opportunity of hearing for the petitioner and recording reasons to address any objections raised.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the Registrar Compliance was directed to communicate the order to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow to prevent such practices in the future.