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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Tripat Isapt Udyog, filed a writ petition 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 GST DRC-07, also issued by the 7th respondent, was also under challenge.

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 relied-upon documents were supplied to the petitioner, or that a personal hearing was provided. The Court also noted that the order was passed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and the GST DRC-07. The matter was remitted back to the 7th respondent for fresh consideration. The 7th respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice of hearing to the petitioner, afford a personal hearing, and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The petitioner is required to submit a reply within four weeks of receiving the fresh notice. The ratio decidendi is that orders passed without adhering to principles of natural justice, especially concerning notice, document supply, and personal hearing, are unsustainable, particularly when passed during a period of pandemic without evidence of compliance.

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? (Question of law) 2. Whether an order passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, without adhering to procedural fairness, is liable to be set aside? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as they were not served with the notice, not provided with the documents relied upon by the authority, and not given an opportunity for a personal hearing. They further contended that the order was passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have impacted the procedural fairness. The petitioner relied on the judgment dated 05.09.2022 in W.P.(T) No. 2972 of 2021, which they stated covered the present issue. Respondents' arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents.