2022 (12) TMI 1235 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - fair opportunity of hearing - ex-parte order - violation of principles of natural justice - 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. This we say so, for two reasons - (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case and (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any reasons sufficient even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences, (c) We also find the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances. All issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even if the proceedings were ex parte in nature. As such, on this short ground alone, we dispose of the present writ petition. The instant petition sands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order dated 30.12.2020, Appeal against order dated 18.08.2021, Refund of excess IGST paid, Amendment of GSTR-3B return, Coercive action by Respondents, Other appropriate reliefs sought.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought various reliefs, including quashing the assessment order dated 30.12.2020 and subsequent orders, refund of excess IGST paid, amendment of GSTR-3B return, and prevention of coercive actions by the Respondents. The High Court noted that the appeal against the order dated 18.08.2021 was rejected on the grounds of being time-barred. However, the Court observed that the order lacked natural justice principles and sufficient reasoning, leading to civil consequences. Consequently, the Court decided to intervene despite the statutory remedy available, highlighting the importance of fair hearings and proper justification in legal orders.

The Court, in its judgment, quashed the impugned orders dated 18.08.2021 and 30.12.2020, emphasizing the violation of natural justice principles and insufficient reasoning in the orders. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the required amounts for hearing the appeal and additional amounts demanded by the Assessing Officer. It also ordered the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts and instructed cooperation in the proceedings. The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits, ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties and passing a speaking order with reasons provided to the concerned parties.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of the case, preferably within two months from the petitioner's appearance before the Assessing Authority. The judgment reserved liberty for the petitioner to challenge the order if needed and for parties to seek other legal remedies available. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving all issues open for further consideration. The judgment concluded by highlighting the importance of conducting proceedings through digital modes and ensuring prompt handling of any future legal actions related to the case.

In summary, the High Court's judgment addressed various issues raised by the petitioner, focusing on upholding natural justice principles, providing fair opportunities for all parties, and ensuring a transparent and reasoned decision-making process by the Assessing Authority. The judgment aimed to facilitate a swift and just resolution of the case while safeguarding the rights and interests of the involved parties within the legal framework.