M/S J M D News And Advetisers vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s J M D News & Advertisers, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a recovery citation, and seeking a direction for respondent No. 3 to decide their appeal. The petitioner's appeal against the adjudicating authority's order dated 12.12.2023 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 28.02.2025 for being filed beyond the prescribed limitation. The petitioner contended that their reply to the show-cause notice dated 22.10.2023 was not considered by the adjudicating authority, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the reply was not considered because it was submitted manually and not electronically, and the petitioner did not appear for the hearing.

Held

The Court held that the adjudicating authority's order dated 12.12.2023 was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found it undisputed that the petitioner submitted their reply manually on 22.10.2023, well before the last date for submission. The technical objection that the reply should have been submitted electronically was not accepted. Furthermore, the Court held that even if the petitioner did not appear for the hearing, it was the duty of the adjudicating authority to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner. As the non-consideration of the reply went to the root of the matter, the Court felt inclined to interfere despite the appeal being filed beyond the limitation period. The original order of the adjudicating authority was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's reply dated 22.10.2023. The petitioner was also to be provided a personal hearing if requested.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudicating authority's order dated 12.12.2023, passed without considering the petitioner's reply submitted on 22.10.2023, is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority's order was illegal because their reply to the show-cause notice was not considered. They contended that this non-consideration amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the order liable to be quashed. They relied on the fact that their reply was submitted manually before the due date. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner's reply was not considered because it was submitted manually and not electronically, as required. They also contended that the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed for hearing, further justifying the non-consideration of the reply.