Aloke Kumar Paul @ Aloke Paul vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax,Bowbazar Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Alok Kumar Paul, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 27, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority dismissed his appeal without granting an adjournment, despite a request made on the grounds of his advocate's illness. The appeal had previously been adjourned once on November 13, 2024, and was scheduled for consideration on November 21, 2024. On November 21, 2024, an adjournment was sought due to the advocate's illness, which was refused. The impugned order was subsequently passed on November 27, 2024. The petitioner argued that this procedure violated the principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the refusal of the adjournment sought on the ground of the petitioner's advocate's illness, and the subsequent disposal of the appeal, appeared to be violative of the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that a party must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, and an adjournment request based on a genuine cause like illness of the legal representative should be considered reasonably. The Court noted that the impugned order was passed on a subsequent date (November 27, 2024) after the refusal of adjournment on November 21, 2024, suggesting that the matter was not disposed of immediately upon refusal. The ratio decidendi is that the arbitrary refusal of a reasonable adjournment, especially when based on a valid ground like the advocate's illness, infringes upon the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated November 27, 2024, and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and no issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refusal of an adjournment by the appellate authority on the ground of the petitioner's advocate's illness, leading to the dismissal of the appeal, violates the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the right to be heard? The petitioner argued that the appellate authority erred in refusing the adjournment request, which was based on a genuine ground of the advocate's illness. He contended that this refusal prevented him from presenting his case effectively, thereby violating fundamental principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the principle that a party has a right to be heard and that such a right cannot be curtailed by arbitrary refusal of reasonable adjournments. The State, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, argued that the appellate authority had already granted one adjournment and that the repeated requests for adjournment by the petitioner indicated a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. They contended that the appellate authority was justified in refusing further adjournment to ensure timely disposal of the appeal.