2024 (1) TMI 1048 - HC - GST

Refund claim - Transaction for export of services or not - Zero rated supply - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The principles of natural justice would require that Respondent No. 4, which is the Appellate Authority which has to decide the said Appeals and pass orders therein, must give a personal hearing to the Petitioner in the said Appeals. In these circumstances, since the Petitioner has not been given a personal hearing in the said Appeals by Respondent No. 4, it is necessary that Respondent No. 4 should be directed to give a personal hearing to the Petitioner before passing any Order in the said Appeals. Further, even if a statute does not prescribe the time within which the Order is required to be passed by the Appellate Authority, such an Order must be passed within a reasonable period of time. In the present case, the said Appeals have been filed by the Petitioner in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Even considering the disruption caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic, Respondent No. 4 ought to have passed Orders in the said Appeals by now. Failure of the Respondent No. 4 to pass orders in the said Appeals within a reasonable period of time would cause prejudice to the Petitioner - as sought by the Petitioner, Respondent No. 4 will have to be directed to decide the said Appeals within a fixed period of time. Respondent No. 4 is ordered and directed to pass orders in the said Appeals within a period of six weeks from the date this Order is intimated to Respondent No. 4 after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing in each of the said Appeals - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues in this case involve seeking a fair opportunity of personal hearing in appeals filed against specific orders and expeditious passing of reasoned orders by the Appellate Authority.

Fair Opportunity of Personal Hearing:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus or certiorari to direct the Joint Commissioner of State Tax Appeals to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity of personal hearing in appeals against various orders. The petitioner contended that despite attending personal hearings, a record of the hearing was not provided, and the hearings were conducted by an assistant instead of the Joint Commissioner. The court held that the principles of natural justice required the Appellate Authority to give a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing any orders in the appeals. Consequently, the Respondent No. 4 was directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner in each of the appeals.

Expeditious Passing of Reasoned Orders:
The petitioner also sought a writ to direct the Respondent No. 4 to expeditiously pass reasoned orders in the appeals. The court noted that the appeals were filed in 2019, 2020, and 2021, and despite the passage of time, orders had not been passed. Emphasizing the importance of timely decisions, the court held that even without a statutory time limit, orders must be passed within a reasonable period. Failure to do so would prejudice the petitioner's rights and business operations guaranteed under the Constitution. Therefore, the court directed Respondent No. 4 to decide the appeals within a fixed period of six weeks from the date of the order.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay directed the Appellate Authority to provide a fair opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in the appeals and to pass reasoned orders within six weeks. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring timely decisions to prevent prejudice to the petitioner's rights. No costs were awarded in this case.