2024 (5) TMI 249 - HC - GST

Ex-parte order - in spite of sufficient opportunity being given, the petitioner did not appear - whether the State is interested to earn revenue for the State or adhering to technicalities the authority is keen to harass? - HELD THAT - Considering the interest of the State for augmentation of revenue, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the appellate authority in Appeal is liable to be quashed and is, accordingly, hereby quashed. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to reconsider afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As such, to short cut the time, this Court fixes 15.03.2024 on which date the petitioner shall appear along with all the records and also reply before the appellate authority, i.e., Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Balasore, Odisha so that the very same authority shall consider and pass appropriate order. The writ petition is disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding an order passed under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the subsequent appeal process.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Opportunity of hearing in the appeal process
The petitioner contended that the appellate authority did not provide an opportunity of hearing, leading to the petitioner being unable to substantiate their case with records. The petitioner argued that the order passed in the appeal cannot be sustained due to this lack of opportunity.

Issue 2: Compliance with procedural requirements
The Standing Counsel representing the CT & GST Department argued that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing but did not file a reply despite seeking time. It was mentioned that as per the relevant Act, adjournments during the appeal process are limited, and since the petitioner did not provide any materials, the impugned order was passed lawfully.

Judgment on Issue 1 and 2:
After considering the contentions of both parties and reviewing the records, the Court found that although the petitioner had requested time for compliance, they were not given a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court noted the importance of balancing revenue collection with procedural adherence. Consequently, the order passed by the appellate authority was deemed liable to be quashed. The matter was remitted back to the appellate authority for reconsideration, with clear instructions to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A specific date was set for the petitioner to appear with all necessary records and reply before the appellate authority for a fresh decision.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with the above observations and directions, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing in the appeal process and cooperation between the parties for swift resolution.