2023 (8) TMI 643 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte impugned order - petitioner could not appear on the date fixed for personal hearing - HELD THAT - Having perused the record, in the first place, it is not in doubt that rules of natural justice have been breached. The adjudicating authority ought to have fixed reasonable date for filing reply and for personal hearing. That procedure was not followed. It may be true that the petitioner may have been at fault in not filing reply on the date fixed and having not filed any application thereafter. Yet, the adjudicating authority chose not to pass any order and did not fix any other date for hearing in the matter for a long period of five months. There are no reason for the adjudicating authority to pass that ex parte order, without any further notice. Since no order had been passed on that date, the adjudicating authority was obligated to fix another date. To that extent the petition must succeed. However, at the same time, there is fault on the part of the petitioner in neither filing appeal within limitation nor approaching this Court within reasonable time. Therefore, equities have to be balanced. The writ petition is disposed of with the observation, in case the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 75,000/- before the adjudicating authority-respondent No.2 within three weeks from today, the impugned order shall stand set aside. Further, petitioner may file its reply to the contents of the notice and the order within a period of two weeks thereafter.

Summary

Issues Involved: Challenge to ex parte order under Section 73(8) U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period 2018-19.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged an ex parte order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Ghazipur under Section 73(8) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner contended that they were denied the opportunity of a hearing as the order was passed without fixing another date for hearing after the petitioner failed to appear on the initial date. The Court observed that while the petitioner may have been at fault for not filing a reply, the adjudicating authority should have followed proper procedure and fixed a reasonable date for a hearing. The Court held that the rules of natural justice were breached, and the adjudicating authority should have fixed another date before passing an ex parte order. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000 before the adjudicating authority within three weeks, and upon compliance, the impugned order would be set aside. The petitioner was also given two weeks to file a reply to the notice and order, with a requirement not to seek undue adjournments during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Court found fault on both sides but emphasized the importance of following due process and balancing equities in such matters. The writ petition was disposed of with the above observations and directions for further proceedings before the adjudicating authority.