Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1101 - HC - GSTViolation of the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) - petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before passing of the impugned order - alleged fraudulent business transactions - traders found to be non-existent - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted case that neither the petitioner nor any legal representative on its behalf had been granted any personal hearing so as to explain or canvas its case before the Adjudicating Authority. The respondent despite being afforded several opportunities to file the counter affidavit, has not denied the allegations or the contentions raised by the petitioner. Thus, the averments made in the petition stand admitted by the respondent, as the same have not been traversed. When the statute itself provides that a hearing is required to be given to the person against whom an adverse decision is contemplated, it cannot be contended on behalf of the authorities that the same is not mandatory. In the facts of the present case, there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The order has been passed disregarding the specific provisions incorporated by the Legislature in consonance with the well-settled principles of audi alteram partem - it is difficult to understand why and how any person with a reasonable understanding of the law could observe that a telephonic conversation and the visit of the representative of a party can be considered as a personal hearing - the impugned order, therefore, has been passed in clear violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) and Section 75(5) of the CGST Act and is also in clear violation of principles of natural justice. The Officer seems to be in some sort of hurry to conclude adjudication prior to the end of Financial Year on 31.03.2021 and passed the order, the very next day of filing of the reply - the same is clearly not only in violation of statutory principles of the Act but also is clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The mere availability of alternate remedy, however, does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and will not make the writ petition as not maintainable. The availability of alternate remedy does not operate as a bar on the power of the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The present case is a clear case of violation of the provisions of the Act as well as the violation of principles of natural justice and is a fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter remanded to enable the respondent to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a due opportunity to be heard. Dereliction of duties on the part of the concerned officer - HELD THAT:- The conduct of the respondent, as discussed above, is highly improper. Almost two years of the judicial time has been wasted only for the reason that respondent at first wanted to place the counter affidavit on record and then sought further time to file counter affidavit. - Cost of ₹5,000/- imposed on the respondent i.e. Commissioner of GST.
|