M/S Maa Mangala Enterprises, Rayagada vs. Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar

The facts discerned from the record would reveal that the said impugned order was passed during Covid-19 period and it is universally known fact that the entire globe was impeded with the pace of life and there has been a restriction in the movement.

Since the order appears to have been passed during such period and it appears from the record that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, we find a substance in the stand of the petitioner. It further appears from the pleadings that the order was not communicated to the petitioner and immediately after coming to know of the said order, the approach has been made.

Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the opposite parties-Department vehemently opposes the writ petition and submits that the order is otherwise appealable under the statute and, therefore, the Court should refrain from exercising its discretion in entertaining the instant writ petition.

We would have appreciated the stand of the authority had the facts would not have germane that the order was passed during the pandemic and ex-parte. The denial of an opportunity to defend is regarded as a violation of the principle of natural justice, more particularly, when a serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the impugned order.

Solely on the ground that the impugned order appears to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is hereby set aside. Within three weeks from date, the petitioner must communicate certified copy of this order and his contention to the adjudicating authority. The authority will then consider the contention and pass fresh order. In the event petitioner does not file his contention by 6th April, 2026, the impugned order will stand automatically restored.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.