Remankhan Belin vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 14.05.2020, passed under Section 130 of the GST Act, was vitiated by a breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court found it an admitted position that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. The reasoning was that the COVID-19 pandemic situation might have prevented the petitioner from attending or led them to prioritize safety, and the order was passed in their absence. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, especially in circumstances potentially influenced by a pandemic, violates fundamental principles of natural justice. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order solely on the ground of non-hearing. The authorities were directed to pass a fresh order on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who was also directed to remain present for the hearing. The Court clarified that it had not examined the substantive issues involved in the proceedings before the authorities.

Facts

The petitioners, Remankhan Belin, challenged an order dated 14.05.2020 passed under Section 130 of the GST Act in Form GST MOV-11. The petitioners contended that they were not given an actual opportunity of hearing. The respondent, State of Gujarat, through the Assistant Government Pleader, stated that notice for hearing was issued, but the petitioner chose not to attend, leading to the order being passed ex-parte. The Court noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner may not have been able to attend or preferred to stay safe, and the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.05.2020, passed under Section 130 of the GST Act, is vitiated by a breach of the principles of natural justice due to the absence of an actual hearing for the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The primary argument of the petitioner was that no actual opportunity of hearing was provided before the impugned order was passed. Revenue's Contention: The State argued that a notice for hearing was indeed issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner voluntarily chose not to appear, and consequently, the order was passed in their absence. The State relied on written instructions received by the Assistant Government Pleader.