Manish Agrawal vs. Additional Commissioner State Tax SGST Department

Held

The Court held that the order dated 18.10.2024 was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the admission by the respondent's representative that the order was inadvertently passed on 16.10.2024, which was prior to the date fixed for the petitioner's appearance. This constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an adequate opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 01.07.2025. The petition was allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the respondent to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Manish Agrawal, challenged two orders dated 18.10.2024 and 24.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority & Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, SGST Department, Ujjain. The primary contention was that the notice for hearing was issued for 18.10.2024, but the order was allegedly passed on 16.10.2024, denying the petitioner an adequate opportunity to present their case. The High Court had previously directed the Government Advocate to produce the original record to verify the date of order passing. During the hearing, a representative from the SGST Department admitted that the order was inadvertently passed on 16.10.2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Appellate Authority & Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable in law, given that it was allegedly passed prior to the date fixed for the petitioner's appearance and hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order dated 18.10.2024 (and implicitly the subsequent order dated 24.10.2024) was passed without affording them a proper opportunity to be heard, as the order was purportedly issued before the scheduled hearing date. This procedural lapse renders the order unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The respondent/State, through the Deputy Commissioner, SGST, admitted that the order was passed on 16.10.2024 due to inadvertence, acknowledging the procedural irregularity.