The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, Odisha vs. Sanatan Bal
Original PDF →Facts
The appellants, the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, and another, are challenging an order passed by a learned Single Judge. The respondent, Sanatan Bal, had filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.25681 of 2021. The impugned order was passed on the first date of hearing of the writ petition without providing the appellants an opportunity to file a reply. The appellants contend that this procedural irregularity prejudiced their case. The present proceeding is a writ appeal before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was indeed passed on the very first date of hearing without granting the appellants an opportunity to file a reply to the writ petition. This procedural lapse was considered a sufficient ground to set aside the order. The Court reasoned that principles of natural justice mandate that parties should have a chance to present their case before an adverse order is made. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the writ petition to the file of the learned Single Judge. The appellants were directed to file their reply by a specific date, followed by a rejoinder from the respondent. The learned Single Judge was requested to hear the matter on merits and dispose of it expeditiously. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside on the ground that it was passed on the first date of hearing without affording an opportunity to the appellants to file a reply to the writ petition, thereby violating principles of natural justice? The appellants argued that the order was passed ex-parte and without considering their response, which is a violation of procedural fairness. They contended that they were not given a chance to present their case or file a counter-affidavit to the writ petition. The revenue (appellants) relied on the principle that parties must be heard before an adverse order is passed. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (Sanatan Bal) on this issue, other than implicitly supporting the writ petition that led to the impugned order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 23.03.2023 02. 1. On the short ground that the impugned order was passed on the very first date of the hearing without any opportunity to the present Appellant to file a reply to the writ petition, the impugned order is set aside.
W.P.(C) No.25681 of 2021 will be restored to the file of the learned Single Judge in the roster Bench where it will be listed for hearing on 13th July, 2023. 3. Reply will be filed by the present Appellants to the writ petition positively on or before 1st July, 2023 and rejoinder affidavit thereto by 10th July, 2023. It is made clear that none of the parties will be granted any more opportunity for the above purpose.
The learned Single Judge is requested to proceed with the hearing of the matter on merits and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy) Judge
SK Jena/Secy.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.