Remankhan Belin VS The State of Gujarat

In this case, the court heard arguments from Mr. Varis V. Isani, representing the petitioners, and Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, the learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) for the respondents. The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, challenges an order dated May 14, 2020, issued under Section 130 of the GST Act, presented in Form

GST MOV-11, which is included as Annexure-A in the petition.

The petitioners’ primary argument is that they were not given an actual opportunity to be heard before the order was passed. Mr. Pandya, citing written instructions received on June 8, 2020, argued that the petitioners were notified of the hearing but chose not to attend, leading to the order being issued in their absence.

Given the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the court found that the impugned order, dated May 14, 2020, violated the principles of natural justice. The pandemic caused the petitioners to avoid appearing in person for safety reasons, resulting in the order being passed without their presence.

Acknowledging the lack of a hearing, the court quashed the impugned order solely on this basis, without addressing the substantive issues of the case. The authorities are instructed to issue a new order based on the merits, ensuring that the petitioners are given a proper opportunity to be heard. The petitioners must attend the hearing on the date set by the authorities, who will notify them in advance. The court clarified that it has not evaluated the issues involved in the proceedings before the authorities, and the order is set aside purely due to the non-hearing issue.

In the matter of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court heard arguments from Mr. Varis V. Isani, representing the petitioners, and Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, the learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) for the respondents.

The petitioners challenged an order dated May 14, 2020, issued under Section 130 of the GST Act, presented in Form GST MOV-11, which is attached to the petition as Annexure-A. The primary argument presented by the petitioners was that they were not given an opportunity for an actual hearing before the order was passed. Mr. Pandya contended, based on written instructions dated June 8, 2020, that the petitioner was given notice for the hearing but chose not to attend, leading to the order being issued in their absence.

The court noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not attend the hearing, possibly prioritizing their safety. Thus, the court found that the order dated May 14, 2020, was in violation of the principles of natural justice, given the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic.

Acknowledging that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner, the court quashed and set aside the order solely on this procedural ground. The authorities were directed to issue a fresh order on the merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner was instructed to be present on the scheduled date, which the authorities must communicate in advance.

The court clarified that it did not assess the substantive issues of the original proceedings, focusing only on the breach of the right to a hearing. The petition was allowed to this extent, with no order as to costs.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: