P.T.Davis vs. The Deputy Commissioner ( Assmnt )

Facts

The petitioner, P.T. Davis, proprietor of M/s. Maria Poultry Farm, approached the High Court of Kerala challenging Ext.P4, an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, SGST Department, Thrissur. The primary ground for challenge was that the order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner's counsel argued that the principles of natural justice were violated. The respondents, represented by the Senior Government Pleader, contended that a notice was indeed served prior to Ext.P4, but the petitioner failed to appear. However, the Senior Government Pleader conceded that the proceedings were finalized without granting the petitioner a personal hearing.

Held

The Court held that Ext.P4 must be reconsidered by the competent authority. The reasoning was that even if a notice had been issued, it was insufficient because the opportunity of a personal hearing is a fundamental aspect of the statutory scheme and the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the order Ext.P4 was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, which is a violation of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory authority must provide a personal hearing to the assessee before passing an order, even if a notice has been issued, to comply with the principles of natural justice. The Court set aside Ext.P4 and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent on August 26, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. for this purpose.

Key Issues

1. Whether Ext.P4, an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), SGST Department, is liable to be set aside on the ground that it was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the issuance of Ext.P4 without a personal hearing violates the fundamental tenet of the statutory scheme and the principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that a notice was issued to the petitioner, but he failed to appear. However, they conceded that the proceedings were finalized without a personal hearing being granted.