M/S Cherry Hill Interiors Private Limited And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Cherry Hill Interiors Private Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order passed by the appellate authority under the State GST Act, 2017, dated September 20, 2021. The petitioners contended that the order violated the principles of natural justice and was a non-speaking order because the appellate authority failed to consider and discuss all the relevant documents submitted by them. The petitioners annexed these documents to their writ petition. The State GST authorities were represented by Mr. Ghosh, who did not dispute the petitioners' allegations and fairly submitted that the matter could be remanded for fresh consideration.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated September 20, 2021, passed by the appellate authority under the State GST Act, 2017, was liable to be set aside. The Court found merit in the petitioners' contention that the principles of natural justice were violated and that the order was non-speaking, as it failed to consider the relevant documents submitted by the petitioners. The Court acknowledged the fair submission made by the State-respondents. Consequently, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative and after duly considering all the relevant documents referred to in the writ petition. The petitioners also submitted that they would not claim interest on the refund in question. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated September 20, 2021, passed by the appellate authority under the State GST Act, 2017, violates the principles of natural justice by failing to consider all relevant documents submitted by the petitioners? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the impugned order is a non-speaking order, rendering it invalid? (Question of law, turning on the requirement for reasoned orders in administrative proceedings). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the appellate authority's order was bad in law as it violated the principles of natural justice and was non-speaking. They asserted that crucial documents they had filed were not considered or discussed in the impugned order. They relied on the fact that these documents were annexed to the writ petition, substantiating their claim. Revenue/State's arguments: The State-respondents, through their counsel, did not deny or contradict the petitioners' allegations. They fairly conceded that the appellate authority may be directed to reconsider the case afresh, taking into account the relevant documents.