The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha vs. Padu Paraja
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, Padu Paraja, had filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.25692 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 present appeal arises from this situation, where the appellants contend they were denied a chance to respond to the writ petition.
Held
The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable on the short ground that it was passed on the very first date of hearing without providing the appellants an opportunity to file a reply to the writ petition. The Court reasoned that this violated principles of natural justice, as a party must be given a chance to present their defense before an order is passed against them. The ratio decidendi is that orders affecting a party's rights cannot be made ex-parte without affording a hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the writ petition to the file of the learned Single Judge for a fresh hearing on merits. The appellants were directed to file their reply by July 1, 2023, and the respondent to file a rejoinder by July 10, 2023. The learned Single Judge was requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order, passed on the first date of hearing of the writ petition without affording the appellants an opportunity to file a reply, is sustainable in law? This issue turns on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The appellants argued that the order was passed without granting them a chance to present their case, violating their right to be heard. The revenue (appellants) contended that the order was procedurally flawed as it was passed ex-parte without a proper hearing or opportunity to file a response. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent (Padu Paraja) regarding this procedural issue, but the context implies their petition was heard and an order was passed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 23.03.2023 02. 1. The present appeal is delinked from the connected case as requested by learned counsel for the parties.
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.25692 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. 4. 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.