2024 (2) TMI 554 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided - multiple hearings were scheduled by the appellate authority or not - HELD THAT - The documents on record disclose that hearings were rescheduled either at the instance of the petitioner or the appellate authority. Although Additional Government Pleader produced the hearing notice dated 22.06.2023 for the hearing on 27.06.2023, there is no proof of service thereof on the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not heard before the appellate order was issued, the impugned order warrants interference. It should also be noticed that the petitioner made the pre-deposit while presenting the appeal. The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenges an appellate order for not providing a reasonable opportunity.

Details of the judgment:
The petitioner had presented an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST, Appeal, Chennai-II and had remitted the requisite pre-deposit. Hearings were scheduled and adjourned at times by both the petitioner and the appellate authority. The petitioner received a hearing notice for 23.06.2023, which was later postponed, and the impugned order was received in November 2023. The writ petition was filed based on these circumstances.

The petitioner claimed that the hearings were rescheduled at times by the appellate authority and at other times by the petitioner. The petitioner did not receive notice for the hearing on 27.06.2023 and only became aware of the impugned order upon receipt in November 2023.

The Additional Government Pleader pointed out that multiple hearings were scheduled, as seen in the impugned order. Referring to Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, it was argued that only three adjournments should be provided, and multiple opportunities were given to the petitioner. A hearing notice for 27.06.2023 was issued, but there was no proof of service to the petitioner.

The court found that since the petitioner was not heard before the appellate order was issued, interference was necessary. The impugned order dated 27.06.2023 was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within two months after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner.

The writ petition was disposed of without any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.