Similar question of law and fact arises in these writ petitions.

Hence, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment & order.

In Writ Petition Nos.11857, 11860 and 11888 of 2021, petitioner has assailed assessment orders dated 06.02.2021 imposing tax, penalty and interest to the tune of ₹ 22,44,905/-, 1, 35,00, 555/- and ₹ 2,42,30,362/- for the periods April, 2019 to August, 2019, September 2019 to March, 2020 and May, 2018 to March 2019 respectively as payments received by him on works contract from the Forest Department did not tally with the turnovers reported through GSTR-3B forms respectively in W.P.Nos.11857 of 2021, 11860 of 2021 and 11888 of 2021.

Mr. Suribabu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argues that his client was unable to submit relevant documents exempting the tax liability as the State was going through a lockdown and without giving his client adequate opportunity to submit such documents, the assessing authority passed the impugned orders in violation of principles of natural justice and fair procedure. He relies on a decision of this Court in Walchandnagar Industries Limited, Visakhapatnam Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kurupam Market Circle, Visakhapatnam (2020) 70 APSTJ 177 (APHC)..

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax submits that the petitioner had been given due opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice served upon him on 21.09.2020. In spite of receipt of such notice he did not file any objection nor did he seek time to submit relevant papers and/or participate in the hearing. Accordingly, the Assessing Authority was constrained to pass the impugned orders.

We have considered the materials on record.

No doubt, the country was reeling under the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have caused inconvenience to petitioner in participating in the hearing. However, nothing prevented him from communicating this fact to the assessing authority and seek adjournment in the matter. The ratio in the decision (1 supra) cited before this Court is factually distinguishable as the assessment order in the said case had been passed in April, 2020 when the Country was under complete lock down whereas, in the present case the show-cause notice was issued in September, 2020 when unlocking phase had already commenced and the impugned order was, in fact, passed in February, 2021 when no lockdown was in force. Hence, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that imposition of lock-down had prevented him from responding to the E-Mail notice served upon him on 21.09.2020. However, we are not unmindful of the fact that the petitioner has annexed documents to show that bills were submitted prior to the introduction of GST Act, 2017 and it is claimed in view of taxes being deducted at source by the Government department the petitioner cannot be saddled with liability under GST Act. As such materials had not been placed before the assessing authority, the said authority had no occasion to consider tax liability from such angle.

Under such circumstances, to strike a balance between the indolence of petitioner in not responding to the notice dated 21.09.2020 and participating in the hearing culminated in passing the impugned orders on one hand and the necessity of fair adjudication based on all relevant materials, we choose to remand the matter for fresh hearing subject to conditions.

Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petitions directing in the event the petitioner deposits a sum of 10% of the tax, penalty and interest imposed upon him as per the impugned orders within four (04) weeks from the date of this order, the impugned orders shall remain suspended and the assessing authority shall consider the matters afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and upon considering all the documents submitted by him in accordance with law. The assessing authority shall pass fresh orders in the matters preferably within eight (08) weeks from date. No unnecessary adjournment shall be sought for on behalf of the parties. It is needless to mention the matter shall be considered afresh independently and in accordance with law without being prejudiced by observations made in this order or the orders impugned. In the event the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid sum within the stipulated timeframe, the impugned orders shall continue to remain in force.

Accordingly, Writ Petitions are disposed of.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.