M/S Skipper Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority's order dated 4.6.2019 was indeed an ex parte order, as the notices for hearing were returned unserved, meaning the petitioner was never properly served and thus not afforded an opportunity to appear. The Court found that remitting the matter back to the appellate authority for a rehearing would serve the ends of justice. The Court quashed the order dated 4.6.2019 and remitted the appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner undertook to be present on 23.12.2019, the date fixed for rehearing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Skipper Limited, challenged two orders: one dated 5.6.2018 by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-6, Raipur, imposing a penalty of Rs.1,52,212/- under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, for transporting goods without an e-way bill, and another dated 4.6.2019 by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Raipur, affirming the penalty. The petitioner had deposited the penalty under protest and filed an appeal. The petitioner's grievance was that the appellate authority did not provide an opportunity of hearing before deciding the appeal, as notices issued for hearings on 8.10.2018 and 4.6.2019 were returned unserved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in passing an ex parte order without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the appellate authority's order dated 4.6.2019 was passed ex parte because the notices for hearing issued on two occasions were returned unserved, indicating the petitioner was not properly notified. They argued that this failure to provide a hearing prejudiced their case, preventing them from presenting judicial pronouncements in their favour. The petitioner sought a remand to the appellate authority for a fresh hearing. Respondents' Arguments: The learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not object to the limited prayer made by the petitioner for remitting the matter back to the appellate authority.