This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“……….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Order of Assessment cum Penalty cum Interest passed by the First Respondent vide GSTN No.37AAEFF7537K1Z1(CGST), dated 13.11.2019 for the Tax Periods 2017-18 (from July, 2017), 2018-19 and 2019-20 (up to July, 2019) under the CGST Act, 2017, without affording reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to file its objections and attend personal hearing, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and contrary to the provisions of the GST Acts, 2017, unsustainable, unjustified and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass..….”
2. Though various grounds are raised, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Final – cum – Hearing Notice, dated 06.11.2019, wherein the petitioner was directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Proddatur-I Circle on 13.11.2019, was served on 12.11.2019 and the order came to be passed even before the closing hours of 13.11.2019. In other words, his plea appears to be that on receipt of notice on 12.11.2020, immediately, he went to the office by 4:30 P.M. on 13.11.2020 but by then, the impugned order was passed.
3. However, in the counter filed, the same is strongly disputed.
It is stated that the notice, dated 06.11.2019, was sent by e-mail to the petitioner on 07.11.2019 at 12:59 P.M. and as such, the petitioner ought to have filed objections and represent his case on 13.11.2019. In the absence of the same, it is urged that the request of the petitioner for setting aside the order impugned on the ground that no opportunity was given to him cannot be accepted.
4. As seen from the record, the petitioner received the notice for final hearing, dated 06.11.2019, by way of a registered post on 12.11.2019. Immediately thereafter, he contacted his Tax Consultant, who was at Hyderabad. The Tax Consultant informed him that it is not possible for him to come over from Hyderabad to Proddatur on a day’s notice, as he has to adjust his work. So he himself prepared an adjournment letter informing the facts and sought 15 days’ time for attending the hearing. The petitioner went to the office of respondent No.1 on 13.11.2019 in the afternoon but the officer was not present. He stayed there and met the officer before the closing hours, who informed that the impugned order has already been passed. Though the same is disputed, but even as per the counter, notice by way of e-mail was said to have been sent on 07.11.2020 at 12:59 P.M. giving less then a week’s time for the petitioner to take steps to present before the authorities.
5. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that deciding the matter without hearing the petitioner amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be brushed aside. Even assuming that the notice was sent by e-mail, we feel that the petitioner should have been given some more time so as to enable him to engage a counsel, who can present his case well before the concerned authority, more so, having regard to the background in which he is placed. Hence, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authority with a direction that the same shall be decided on or before 15.12.2020 after hearing the petitioner. It is needless to mention that no fresh notice shall be issued to the petitioner intimating the date of hearing.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.