2022 (4) TMI 186 - HC - GST

Principles of Natural Justice - whether the petitioner has been given an effective opportunity of hearing by non supplying the documents data demanded by the petitioner during the hearing before the adjudicating authority? - HELD THAT - The petitioner is having the fundamental right of having the effective opportunity of hearing before imposing tax liability with interest and penalty. Although the relied documents were supplied with the show cause notice but the documents on which the petitioner wanted to rely in order to submit an effective reply to the show cause notice and strong defense in the pending proceedings was not been provided. Since there is a violation of principles of natural justice therefore the petitioner cannot be relegated to the appellant authority by way of appeal in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT - the apex court has held that there are certain exceptions in the rule of alternate remedy including where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of law or acted in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure or violation of principles of natural justice. The only ground on which the petitioner has filed this writ petition is that despite repeated demands the data collected from the laptop of Manish Verma were provided to him. However it is not in dispute that the data and documents relied on in the show cause notice were provided to the petitioner. When any the noticee prays for fair trial then there should be effective participation in the entire trial by him also. The petitioner instead of appearing through a legal representative before the adjudicating authority was kept on corresponding for supply for entire data collected by the respondents during the search. No such demand was made by the person from whose possession the data was seized - Even otherwise appellate authority is competent to examine the effect non-supply of non relied upon documents/ data while deciding the appeal. Even otherwise there are details of the data demanded by the writ petitioner only for the sake of delaying the proceedings simply letters were sent. The grounds raised in this petition are available before the appellate authority to be raised in the appeal especially when other notice might have preferred an appeal against the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment in the writ petition challenging a final order.
2. Non-supply of digital data during adjudication violating principles of natural justice.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedy.

Issue 1: Amendment in the writ petition challenging a final order
The petitioner filed a writ petition against a show cause notice issued by the respondents. Subsequently, an adjudication order was passed during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner sought to challenge the validity of the final order by filing an application for amendment. The respondents opposed the application, citing the availability of a statutory remedy to file an appeal against the final order. However, the court allowed the amendment application based on subsequent developments and the plea of an alternative remedy already being taken by the respondents.

Issue 2: Non-supply of digital data during adjudication violating principles of natural justice
The core issue in the petition was whether the petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity of hearing due to the non-supply of demanded digital data during the adjudication process. The petitioner argued that the failure to provide essential documents for an effective defense violated principles of natural justice. Citing legal precedents, the petitioner contended that certain exceptions exist to the rule of alternative remedy, including instances of non-compliance with legal provisions or principles of natural justice. The petitioner emphasized the importance of a fair trial and effective participation in the proceedings.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedy
The respondents contended that all necessary digital data had been supplied to the petitioner and highlighted the availability of an appeal as an alternative remedy. They argued that the petitioner did not actively participate in the enquiry before the adjudicating authority, leading to the final order being passed. The respondents emphasized that the final order could not be quashed solely based on the petitioner's non-appearance during the proceedings. They relied on legal judgments supporting the principle that when a special remedy of appeal exists, the high court should not entertain a writ petition. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, granting the liberty to approach the appellate authority and refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of amendment in the writ petition, non-supply of digital data violating principles of natural justice, and the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the availability of an alternative remedy. The court's decision allowed the amendment, considered the petitioner's right to a fair trial, and upheld the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before resorting to writ petitions.