M/S. Tech Support vs. The Asst.Commissioner GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition against the assessment order, holding that an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. While acknowledging the petitioner's argument regarding the violation of natural justice, the Court stated that all such issues, including the denial of a proper hearing and the non-consideration of the adjournment application, could be adjudicated in the appeal before the appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Odisha, within fifteen days from the date of the order. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed, it shall be considered and disposed of by the appellate authority in accordance with law within three months thereafter.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Tech Support, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Specifically, a notice dated 14.02.2020 required appearance on 21.02.2020, which was a public holiday. The hearing was adjourned to 02.03.2020 and then to 16.03.2020 due to the unavailability of the opposite party. On 16.03.2020, the petitioner's Managing Partner submitted an application requesting time to respond to the show cause notice and appear for a personal hearing, which was not addressed in the final order. The petitioner argued that the order was passed mechanically.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 06.08.2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the denial of a proper opportunity for personal hearing and submission of reply to the show cause notice, thereby warranting the entertainment of a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order is untenable as it was passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. They highlighted the procedural irregularities, including the initial hearing date falling on a public holiday and subsequent adjournments, culminating in an application for time that was not considered. The petitioner urged the Court to entertain the writ petition directly, notwithstanding the alternative appellate remedy. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or State.