Tvl. Rabi Agency vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Rabi Agency, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte assessment order dated November 20, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that due to a lack of GST knowledge and portal access, they relied on a part-time accountant who failed to inform them about the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to attend the personal hearing, leading to the issuance of the impugned order. The primary grievance was that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated November 20, 2023, passed by the respondent was in violation of the principles of natural justice as it was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance that they were denied a fair chance to present their case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to re-do the assessment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, ensuring that a fair opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioner. This decision is based on the principle that principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, are fundamental to administrative proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.11.2023, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for being passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as contemplated under the GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without providing a fair opportunity of hearing, which is a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice. They sought to quash the order and have the assessment redone after a personal hearing. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the court's decision implies that the respondent's action of passing an ex-parte order without a hearing was found to be legally unsustainable.