2024 (10) TMI 1293 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - Failure to consider petitioner's reply to SCN - non-application of mind - singular contention is that the exercise of issuance of show-cause notice should not be an empty formality - HELD THAT - In furtherance of show-cause notice, the petitioner filed reply which has not been considered. This exercise of issuance of notice and obtaining a reply, in our opinion, is not an empty public relation exercise. Instead, it is the codification of principles of natural justice in the statute and the said principle mandates that said reply be obtained before passing any adverse order and there must be an application of mind by considering the reply of the petitioner. In the instant case, in a hasty manner, without application of mind, the impugned order has been passed. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 is set aside by reserving liberty to the respondents to consider the reply of petitioner and pass a fresh order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Failure to consider petitioner's reply to show-cause notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice, to which they promptly replied. However, the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's response, leading to the challenge in the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issuance of a show-cause notice should not be a mere formality; rather, the principles of natural justice mandate that any reply must be given due weightage. The Special Government Pleader for State Tax acknowledged the infirmity in the impugned order and agreed that the order should be set aside to allow for a fresh consideration of the petitioner's reply.

The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the process of issuing a notice and obtaining a reply is not a superficial exercise but a crucial aspect of natural justice. The Court noted that passing an adverse order without considering the petitioner's response goes against the principles of fairness and application of mind. The Court highlighted the importance of giving proper weightage to the petitioner's reply before making any decision. The Special Government Pleader assured the Court that steps would be taken to prevent such oversights in the future, leading the Court to refrain from imposing exemplary costs this time.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and granted liberty to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's reply and issue a fresh order. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent for a personal hearing, if required by law, on a specified date. The Court disposed of the writ petition without imposing any costs, expecting that authorities would exercise due diligence in their future orders to uphold principles of natural justice.