Ushman Khan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The High Court dismissed the review petition. Regarding the alleged violation of natural justice, the Court noted that the petitioner's original writ petition was conspicuously silent on crucial aspects. It was not stated what steps the petitioner took after filing the appeal on 16.09.2019, nor did the petition mention any demand for a hearing or the procedure for online hearings. The petitioner also failed to assert that he was not intimated about the hearing on 04.01.2022 or that the date was fixed behind his back. The Court found the absence of necessary pleadings in the writ petition to be fatal to the review claim. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner, Suguna Cutpiece Center, was distinguished as it did not deal with the violation of natural justice by an Appellate Authority or appeals filed online. Therefore, the Court found no substance in the review petition.
Facts
The petitioner, Ushman Khan, filed a review petition seeking to review an order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the High Court in W.P.No.4349/2022. The petitioner's original appeal before the Appellate Authority was dismissed on 04.01.2022 without affording an opportunity of hearing. This dismissal was challenged in W.P.No.4349/2021, which was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court held that the petitioner could not rely on a Circular dated 25.06.2020 for condonation of delay as it pertained to Section 29 of the CGST Act, not Section 107 concerning appeals. The petitioner argued that the High Court failed to consider ground 6.2 of his petition, which alleged violation of natural justice by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner relied on the Madras High Court's decision in Suguna Cutpiece Center vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) Salem.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing W.P.No.4349/2022 without considering ground 6.2 of the petitioner's petition, which alleged a violation of the principles of natural justice by the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal without a hearing? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the High Court overlooked a crucial ground (6.2) in his writ petition, which stated that the Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal without providing an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. He relied on the Madras High Court's decision in Suguna Cutpiece Center vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) Salem to support his claim for review. Respondents' Contention: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the review petition, but the High Court's previous order indicated that the petitioner could not rely on a specific circular for condonation of delay as it related to a different section of the Act.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
This is a petition seeking review of order dated 04.05.2022 passed in W.P.No.4349/2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner herein had filed 1 an appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the Appellate Authority dismissed
the appeal vide order dated 04.01.2022, without extending opportunity of h
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.