2020 (5) TMI 343 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - existence of alternative remedy - Requests for adjournment from personal appearance - adjournment sought on the ground that because of the prevalent pandemic situation, namely COVID-19, the petitioner could not file a detailed reply nor appear in person before the 1st respondent - appellant also sought time on the ground that they could not access all the records and to prepare their statement of objections - HELD THAT - The existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar on this Court. The writ in the opinion of this court is maintainable, as this Court opines that there is a failure of the rules of natural justice which entail a fair hearing. A reading of the impugned order shows that it also relates to the period 2014-2015 onwards. Therefore, this Court finds sufficient strength in the statement made that old records had to be accessed in order to prepare a detailed reply. This Court also notices that 1st respondent has also noticed the orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the taken up matters by which limitation was extended for all matters, including limitation prescribed in the Statutes. The impugned order dated 17.04.2020 and the consequential order 23.04.2020 are both set aside - Immediately after the pandemic situation eases and the restrictions are lifted on the movement of men and material etc., 1st respondent is directed to issue a notice to the petitioner giving him two weeks time to appear along with his reply and all his documents. 1st respondent is therefore, directed to give two weeks notice, after the Central Government relaxes the lock down in India, fix a suitable date for the appearance of the petitioner and for disposal of the matter. It is made clear that if the petitioner seeks time or otherwise tries to delay the matter, 1st respondent is at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Failure to provide a fair hearing due to pandemic situation
- Disagreement with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding limitation extension

Detailed Analysis:

1. Failure to provide a fair hearing due to pandemic situation:
The petitioner, an industry based in Pune, was issued a notice by the 1st respondent to appear before them. The petitioner, through their counsel, requested exemption from personal hearing due to the prevailing pandemic situation caused by COVID-19. The petitioner highlighted that they were unable to coordinate with their offices in other states to file a detailed reply and were denied adjournments by the 1st respondent. The petitioner emphasized the need for a detailed reply and a personal appearance before the 1st respondent to explain their case. The counsel also pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had extended the period of limitation in all matters due to the pandemic, ensuring the interests of the state. The court observed that the requests for adjournment were made due to the pandemic situation, preventing the petitioner from filing a detailed reply or accessing all records. The court found that the existence of an alternative remedy did not bar the maintainability of the writ petition, highlighting a failure of the rules of natural justice, which require a fair hearing. The court deemed the writ petition maintainable and ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned orders.

2. Disagreement with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding limitation extension:
The court noted that the 1st respondent had disagreed with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding the extension of limitation for all matters, including those prescribed in statutes. The court emphasized that the order of the Supreme Court is binding on all citizens, tribunals, and courts, including those exercising quasi-judicial functions. The court found the 1st respondent's understanding of the law declared by the Supreme Court to be misconceived. Without delving further into the matter, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought, setting aside the impugned orders dated 17.04.2020 and 23.04.2020. The court directed the 1st respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner after the pandemic situation eases, allowing time for the petitioner to appear, prepare a reply, and present all documents. The court provided specific directions for the proceedings post-lockdown relaxation, ensuring the petitioner's rights while allowing the 1st respondent to proceed strictly in accordance with the law if necessary. The writ petitions were allowed with no costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were to stand closed.