M/S Narsingh Kumar Yadav vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that it was not precluded from interfering with the matter despite the statutory remedy, as the orders appeared ex facie bad in law. The Court found two primary reasons for interference: (a) violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and insufficient time afforded to the petitioner to represent their case, and (b) the ex parte nature of the orders which did not assign sufficient reasons for determining the amount due. The Court also noted that the authorities had not adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances, failing to deal with all issues of fact and law. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside all the impugned orders. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit an additional ten percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer within four weeks, without prejudice to their rights. The Court also ordered the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts and directed the Assessing Authority to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording adequate opportunity to all parties, and passing a speaking order within two months. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during this period. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues were left open.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Narsingh Kumar Yadav, a sole proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition challenging several orders. The primary order under challenge was passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) on August 17, 2021, rejecting the petitioner's appeal against an order dated January 16, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The appeal was rejected ex parte. The petitioner also sought to quash subsequent orders dated February 4, 2022, and January 4, 2022, by the Assistant Commissioner, and an order dated October 17, 2019, by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax. The revenue, through its counsel, agreed to a remand for fresh decision on merits without limitation issues arising and without coercive steps during pendency.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, particularly the appellate order rejecting the appeal ex parte, were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair opportunity of hearing? (Mixed question of law and fact) 2. Whether the ex parte orders sufficiently assigned reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee? (Question of law) 3. Whether the authorities adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances, dealing with all issues of fact and law? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the orders were ex parte, passed without sufficient time for representation and without adequate reasons, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner also stated that ten percent of the total amount, a prerequisite for appeal hearing, had been deposited. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue stated no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case afresh, and that limitation would not be a bar. The Revenue also agreed that the case would be decided on merits and no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case.