These three writ petitions involve identical questions of facts and law. The petitioner has assailed identical orders dated22.04.2021 (Annex.-8 in all these three writ petitions) passed byJoint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Nagaur under Sec.74(1)
In the case involving the submission of Form #GST DRC-06, the petitioner initially chose not to opt for a personal hearing. Subsequently, an Assessment Order was issued, prompting the assessee to allege a violation of the “Principles of Natural Justice.” Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee appealed to the High Court.
The High Court carefully considered the petitioner’s decision not to avail themselves of a personal hearing during the Form #GST DRC-06 submission. In its ruling, the court emphasized that the explicit choice made by the petitioner not to opt for a personal hearing was a crucial factor. The court concluded that, given this clear indication of the petitioner’s preference, the impugned orders could not be deemed to have been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.
In essence, the High Court’s decision underscored the importance of respecting the choices made by the parties involved in legal proceedings. By explicitly waiving the option for a personal hearing, the petitioner had, in the eyes of the court, foregone the right to raise objections based on the violation of natural justice principles in the subsequent Assessment Order. This case serves as a reminder of the significance of parties’ explicit choices in legal processes and how those choices can impact the assessment of procedural fairness.
