Shri Sai Ram Bhatta Company vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Sai Ram Bhatta Company, challenged an order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the respondent authority under Rule 22 of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, read with Section 29 of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the preceding notice dated 23.7.2020 was deficient as it did not specify a date for submitting a reply or for appearance. This, according to the petitioner, violated the mandatory requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing under the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 29 of the Act. The Revenue contended that the writ petition was belated, as nearly a year had passed since the impugned order was passed.

Held

The Court held that the deficiency in the notice, which failed to specify a date for appearance, resulted in a complete denial of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that while a period of seven days was given for furnishing a reply, the absence of a fixed date for hearing meant that the opportunity to be heard was not real. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that if the petitioner files an application for recall of the order before respondent no.3 along with a copy of the High Court's order, the application should be decided on its merits within two weeks of its filing, without raising any objection regarding limitation. This direction was issued considering the prevailing circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which disadvantaged parties in pursuing legal remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 23.7.2020, preceding the order dated 07.08.2020, was deficient for failing to specify a date for submission of reply and appearance, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 29(2) of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was procedurally flawed because it did not fix a specific date, time, and place for hearing, which is mandatory for a real opportunity of hearing. This deficiency, they contended, amounted to a denial of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the writ petition was filed too late, as almost a year had elapsed since the impugned order was passed, and therefore, the writ court should not interfere at this stage.