M/S Balaji Cotton Gining And Presing Factory vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court did not express an opinion on the merits of the case due to a dispute on facts raised by the State GST Authority. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention regarding the non-consideration of their reply and the potential breach of natural justice. However, due to the factual dispute and the petitioner's own submission regarding the timing of their reply, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the writ petitions. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, within six weeks. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for excluding the period spent in prosecuting the writ petitions when deciding the appeal's limitation period. No specific finding was made on the breach of natural justice claim, nor was any issue expressly left undecided.

Facts

M/s Balaji Cotton Gining and Presing Factory filed three writ petitions challenging rectification orders dated June 10, 2024, issued for Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23. These orders were purportedly based on a summary of an order dated April 26, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Department, Hanumangarh. The petitioner argued that their reply dated May 10, 2024, was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner, leading to a breach of natural justice. The respondents, the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petitions to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rectification orders dated June 10, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Department, Hanumangarh, are liable to be quashed for breach of natural justice, specifically for failing to consider the petitioner's reply dated May 10, 2024? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The rectification orders were passed in breach of natural justice as the petitioner's reply was not considered by the authority. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in "Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai & Ors.". Respondents' arguments: The respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. The judgment does not explicitly detail the respondents' arguments on the merits of the breach of natural justice claim.