M/S Hotel Jeena And Udaya Bar vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Assmt)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Hotel Jeena and Udaya Bar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging Ext-P4 order. The petitioner contended that Ext-P4 was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner argued that despite filing a reply (Ext-P2) to the pre-assessment notice (Ext-P1), the order (Ext-P4) was passed without considering this reply. The revenue, represented by the learned government pleader, suggested that the petitioner's remedy was to file an appeal against Ext-P4. The tax period and the specific amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the issuance of a pre-assessment notice, the petitioner's reply, and the subsequent impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be entertained notwithstanding the availability of an alternate remedy. The primary reason for this decision was that Ext-P4 order was passed without considering Ext-P2 reply submitted by the petitioner. The Court found this to be a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, Ext-P4 order was quashed. The Court directed the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders after considering Ext-P2 reply and after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed without considering a party's response, even if an appeal is available, can be set aside by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction for violating natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether Ext-P4 order, passed by the 1st respondent (The Deputy Commissioner (Assmt), SGST Department), is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, specifically for failing to consider the petitioner's reply (Ext-P2) to the pre-assessment notice (Ext-P1)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of natural justice principles because their reply (Ext-P2) to the pre-assessment notice (Ext-P1) was not considered before the impugned order (Ext-P4) was issued. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, through the learned government pleader, contended that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing an appeal against Ext-P4 order. The revenue did not explicitly argue on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the non-consideration of the reply.