Universal Industries VS The State Tax Officer

The petitioner has approached the court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order issued on Ext.P4 application, which sought rectification of a mistake. The grievance is that the order was issued without granting the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, which the petitioner had specifically opted for. It is argued that despite the petitioner’s choice for a personal hearing, this opportunity was not provided, making Ext.P5 order erroneous. The petitioner asserts that even though alternative remedies might exist, the court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to rectify Ext.P5 order.

On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader vehemently opposes any interim relief. It is contended that Ext.P5 indicates that the petitioner was indeed issued a notice for a personal hearing, specifically referred to at Sl. No.12 in Ext.P5. According to the government’s stance, since the petitioner was duly notified and did not attend the personal hearing as scheduled, it is not justifiable for the petitioner to now claim that no opportunity for personal hearing was granted.

Thus, the core issue revolves around whether the petitioner was effectively given an opportunity for personal hearing as per the notice mentioned in Ext.P5. The petitioner argues that the opportunity was not actually afforded despite the notice, while the government contends that the notice itself constitutes adequate compliance with the requirement of offering a personal hearing.

The petitioner has approached the court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P5 order, which was made on the basis of an application (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner for rectification of a mistake. The primary grievance is that Ext.P5 was issued without granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, despite the petitioner having opted for a personal hearing. The petitioner asserts that no notice for personal hearing was issued to them, which is a requirement under the circumstances. The petitioner argues that due process was not followed, and therefore, seeks relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the availability of alternative remedies.

On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader vehemently opposes granting any interim relief. They argue that Ext.P5 shows that a notice regarding personal hearing was indeed issued to the petitioner, as indicated at Sl. No.12 of the reference in Ext.P5. The Government Pleader contends that since such a notice was issued and the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing, it is not valid for the petitioner to now claim they were denied an opportunity for personal hearing.

In response, the petitioner’s counsel points out that the body of Ext.P5 itself does not mention any notice for personal hearing being issued to the petitioner. They argue that the officer who issued Ext.P5 has not claimed that a notice for personal hearing was issued and the petitioner failed to appear. The petitioner further asserts that since filing their application under Section 161 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST Act) on April 22, 2022, no notice whatsoever had been issued to them for any personal hearing.

In summary, the case hinges on whether the petitioner was actually given an opportunity for personal hearing as required by law. The court will need to ascertain the facts surrounding the issuance of Ext.P5 and whether due process was followed before making a determination on the petitioner’s plea under Article 226.

The petitioner in this case has approached the court seeking relief against an order (Ext.P5) issued without granting them an opportunity for a personal hearing. They argue that despite having opted for a personal hearing, no such opportunity was provided, which they assert is a violation of their right to be heard. They contend that regardless of the availability of other remedies, the court should intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to rectify Ext.P5.

On the other hand, the Senior Government Pleader vehemently opposes granting any interim relief. They point out that Ext.P5 indicates that the petitioner was indeed issued a notice for a personal hearing, referring to a specific notice mentioned in Ext.P5. They argue that since the petitioner did not appear for the hearing despite being notified, it is not justified for them to now claim that no such opportunity was given.

In response, the petitioner’s counsel highlights that while Ext.P5 mentions a notice, the body of the order itself does not refer to any notice for a personal hearing. They assert that the issuing officer has not substantiated that such a notice was issued and that the petitioner failed to attend. They emphasize that since filing their rectification application under Section 161 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act on 22-04-2022, no notice was received for a personal hearing.

After hearing both sides, the court finds merit in the petitioner’s argument. It agrees that no further notice was issued for a personal hearing after the rectification application was filed, as evidenced by the absence of any mention in Ext.P5. Therefore, the court leans towards the petitioner’s position that their right to a fair hearing was infringed upon.

This summary encapsulates the main arguments and the court’s initial assessment of the case, suggesting a likelihood of intervention in favor of the petitioner to rectify the procedural lapse regarding the personal hearing opportunity.

The petitioner approached the court aggrieved by an order (Ext.P5) issued without granting them an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner had applied for rectification of a mistake under Section 161 of the SGST Act, but despite opting for a personal hearing, no such opportunity was provided. The petitioner argued that Ext.P5 should be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In response, the Senior Government Pleader opposed interim relief, citing that Ext.P5 indicated a notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner, though the petitioner did not attend. The petitioner countered, stating that Ext.P5 itself did not mention any notice for personal hearing, and the officer issuing Ext.P5 did not claim such notice was issued and ignored.

After hearing both sides, the court found merit in the petitioner’s argument. It noted that no notice for personal hearing was referenced in Ext.P5, contrary to the government’s claims. Therefore, the court concluded that Ext.P5 was indeed issued without affording the petitioner a hearing opportunity. Consequently, Ext.P5 was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the 1st respondent (authorities) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The 1st respondent was instructed to make a fresh decision on Ext.P4 after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner brought a case before the court due to their dissatisfaction with order Ext.P5, issued on the basis of an application (Ext.P4) filed by them seeking rectification of a mistake. The primary grievance was that Ext.P5 was issued without granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, despite their explicit request for a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that this procedural lapse warranted intervention by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the availability of other legal remedies.

In response, the Senior Government Pleader opposed granting any interim relief, arguing that Ext.P5 clearly indicated a notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner, which they failed to attend. However, the petitioner’s counsel countered that there was no mention of such a notice in the body of Ext.P5 itself, and the issuing officer did not claim to have issued a notice which the petitioner did not attend. According to the petitioner, no notice had been received after their application on April 22, 2022, under Section 161 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST Act).

After considering the arguments from both sides, the court found merit in the petitioner’s contention. It observed that no notice for a personal hearing was evident in Ext.P5, and no such notice had been issued after the initial application. Therefore, the court accepted the petitioner’s plea that Ext.P5 was issued without affording them a fair opportunity to be heard.

Consequently, Ext.P5 was quashed by the court, and the matter was remanded back to the first respondent (authorities) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The court directed the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 after providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the first respondent on a specified date, and the first respondent was mandated to make a decision within two months from receiving a certified copy of the court’s judgment.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: