2023 (11) TMI 661 - HC - GST

Violation of the principles of natural justice - no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner or his authorized representative to appear before the 1st respondent - HELD THAT - From the perusal of the averments made in the impugned order, it is seen that after receipt of the notice in the appeal proceedings, the appellant and his authorized representative had appeared before the 1st respondent and had sought adjournment, the appellate authority has not given the next date of hearing, but further notice was issued to the appellant and the authorized representative. It is the case of the petitioner that such further notice issued to the petitioner were not served upon them. The order impugned is required to be set aside on the short ground that the same is passed in violation of principles of natural justice - the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing order under Section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Summary:

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner, an assessee, challenged the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was in violation of natural justice as no proper opportunity was granted to them to present their case. The petitioner's counsel argued that a fair hearing was essential as the petitioner had strong merits in their favor. On the other hand, the AGA for the respondents defended the order, stating that adequate opportunities were provided during the proceedings.

Procedural Irregularities:
The impugned order revealed irregularities in the process, specifically concerning the issuance and service of notices. Despite the petitioner and their representative appearing before the 1st respondent and requesting an adjournment, the next hearing date was not provided. Subsequently, further notices were issued but allegedly not served on the petitioner. This lack of proper communication raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings.

Judgment:
The High Court, after considering the arguments and reviewing the impugned order, concluded that it was indeed passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate authority on a specified date, where they would be given a proper opportunity to present their case. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and expeditious resolution of the appeal.