M/S Tripati Ispat Udyog Through Its Proprietor Ramesh Kumar Agarwal vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s TripatI Ispat Udyog, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the 7th respondent, the State Tax Officer, Bokaro Circle. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without proper service of notice, without supplying relied-upon documents, and without providing a personal hearing. The petitioner also highlighted that the order was passed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents are the State of Jharkhand and various tax authorities. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned order and the subsequent filing of the writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 24.09.2020, passed by the 7th respondent (State Tax Officer, Bokaro Circle), was liable to be set aside. The Court found that there was no material placed by the respondents to demonstrate that the impugned order was ever served on the petitioner, that the documents relied upon were supplied to the petitioner, or that a personal hearing was provided. Furthermore, the Court noted that the order was passed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the 7th respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed the 7th respondent to issue a fresh notice of hearing to the petitioner, allow the petitioner four weeks to submit a reply upon receipt of the notice, afford a personal hearing, and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law, which should be communicated to the petitioner. The GST DRC-07 issued by the 7th respondent was also set aside. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 24.09.2020, passed by the 7th respondent, is vitiated due to non-service of notice on the petitioner, non-supply of relied-upon documents, and denial of personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice under the relevant GST provisions? 2. Whether an order passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, without adherence to procedural fairness, is liable to be set aside? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as there was no proper service of notice, no supply of documents relied upon for passing the order, and no personal hearing was afforded. The petitioner also emphasized that the order was passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, implying potential procedural irregularities due to the prevailing circumstances. The respondents, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel, did not present any specific arguments or materials to counter the petitioner's claims regarding procedural deficiencies or to justify the impugned order. The judgment notes that the respondents did not provide material to show service of the order, supply of documents, or grant of personal hearing.