2018 (3) TMI 1776 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside order, emphasizes fair hearing for parties, natural justice in administrative actions.

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order demanding payment and penalty due to the respondent's failure to consider the petitioner's ... Recovery notice - demand of service tax with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the respondent has not considered the objections filed by the petitioner as early as on 15.10.2015, the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 and the notice dated 06.03.2018 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 and the notice dated 06.03.2018 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Petition for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order demanding payment and penalty, failure to consider objections filed by petitioner, request for remittance of the matter for fresh consideration.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge an order dated 30.01.2018 demanding payment and penalty totaling to a significant amount. The petitioner also requested the quashing of the order and direction for the respondent not to enforce it. The main contention raised was that despite filing objections on 15.10.2015, the respondent passed the impugned order without considering the objections. The petitioner argued for setting aside the order and remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration.In response, the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the respondent acknowledged the failure to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and agreed that the respondent should reconsider the matter based on the objections submitted earlier. The Court, after considering the submissions from both sides, concluded that since the respondent had not taken into account the objections filed by the petitioner in a timely manner, the impugned order and the subsequent notice were to be set aside. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, giving the petitioner a fair opportunity for a personal hearing and ensuring the decision is made in accordance with the law.Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition, with no costs imposed, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering objections filed by parties in a timely manner and ensuring a fair opportunity for a personal hearing before making decisions, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and due process in administrative actions.