2021 (10) TMI 1221 - HC - GST

Validity of summary order passed u/s 140 and 43(9) - Matching of credit - Violation of principles of natural justice - order passed ex-parte in nature - no sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record - HELD THAT - This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, we form an opinion that the order is bad in law. Violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case - Also, order passed ex-parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against rejection based on delay in limitation period.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in ex-parte orders.
3. Relief sought for quashing orders and extension of limitation period.
4. Remand of the case to Assessing Authority for fresh decision.
5. Directions for deposit and refund of amounts.
6. De-freezing/de-attaching bank accounts.
7. Directions for future proceedings and cooperation.
8. Liberty to challenge orders and take further legal actions.
9. Conducting proceedings through digital mode during the pandemic.

Analysis:

1. Appeal Rejection on Grounds of Delay:
The petitioner sought relief against the rejection of their appeal due to delay in limitation period. The High Court acknowledged the delay but considered it sufficiently explained due to COVID restrictions. The Court emphasized that the delay was not deliberate and was beyond the petitioner's control, thereby indicating a lenient view towards the delay caused by exceptional circumstances.

2. Violation of Natural Justice in Ex-Parte Orders:
The Court found that the ex-parte orders suffered from a violation of principles of natural justice. It noted that the petitioner was not given sufficient time for a fair opportunity to present their case. Additionally, the orders lacked clear reasoning on how the amount due was determined, which was deemed necessary for a just decision. Consequently, the Court intervened based on these grounds and set aside the impugned orders.

3. Relief Sought and Extension of Limitation Period:
The petitioner sought relief in the form of quashing the orders and extending the limitation period under relevant acts. The Court agreed that the limitation period could be extended under the Limitation Act, 1963, and directed that the provisions of the Act would apply in full force. This decision provided the petitioner with the opportunity to present their case within the extended limitation period.

4. Remand to Assessing Authority:
The Court, despite the statutory remedy available, decided to remand the case to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision. This decision was made to ensure that the case is decided on merits and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Court also directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case.

5. Directions for Deposit and Refund of Amounts:
Various directions were issued regarding the deposit and refund of amounts related to the case. The petitioner was required to deposit a specific percentage of the total amount as a condition for hearing the appeal. Additionally, the petitioner undertook to deposit a further amount within a specified period. The Court ensured that any excess deposit would be refunded promptly.

6. De-Freezing/De-Attaching Bank Accounts:
The Court directed the de-freezing or de-attaching of the petitioner's bank accounts if they were attached in relation to the proceedings. This action was to be taken immediately to alleviate any undue financial constraints on the petitioner.

7. Directions for Future Proceedings and Cooperation:
Several directives were provided for future proceedings, including the appearance of the petitioner before the Assessing Authority, cooperation in the proceedings, and timely decision-making by the Authority. The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to principles of natural justice and expeditious resolution of the case.

8. Liberty to Challenge Orders and Take Further Legal Actions:
The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order if necessary and allowed all parties to pursue other legal remedies available in accordance with the law. This provision ensured that the parties had the freedom to seek redress through appropriate legal channels.

9. Conducting Proceedings Through Digital Mode During the Pandemic:
Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Court recommended conducting proceedings through digital mode whenever possible. This approach aimed to ensure the continuity of legal processes while prioritizing the safety and health of all involved parties.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed multiple issues concerning the appeal rejection, violation of natural justice, relief sought, directions for future proceedings, and compliance with legal provisions, providing a comprehensive resolution to the complex legal dispute.

← Previous Next →