High Court Overturns Ex Parte Revenue Order, Restores Procedural Fairness and Directs Fresh Appeal Consideration with Partial Amount Deposit

HC allowed the writ petition challenging an ex parte order, quashing the impugned revenue order dated 19.10.2022. The court directed fresh consideration of the appeal without limitation constraints, mandated partial amount deposit, unfroze the petitioner's bank account, and instructed the Assessing Authority to provide a reasoned order after ensuring fair hearing principles.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeks writ for quashing order dated 19.10.2022 and direction to consider appeal; rejection of appeal on limitation ground; violation of natural justice principles; order passed ex parte without sufficient reasons; disposal of writ petition on grounds of violation of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner prayed for a writ to quash the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the authorities, which rejected the appeal against the order dated 01.02.2021. The rejection was based on the ground of being time-barred. The Revenue's counsel agreed to remand the matter for a fresh decision without the limitation hindrance and assured a fair consideration on merits without coercive actions during the case. However, the court found that despite statutory remedies, interference was justified if the order was legally flawed. The court noted violations of natural justice principles as the petitioner was not given adequate time for a fair hearing, and the ex parte order lacked sufficient reasons to determine the amount due from the assessee. The authorities failed to address all factual and legal issues even in an ex parte proceeding.

The court, based on the mentioned grounds, disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders. It was directed that a percentage of the total amount must be deposited for the appeal to be heard, with an additional deposit required within a specified period. The petitioner's bank account was ordered to be unfrozen, and the petitioner was required to cooperate in the proceedings without unnecessary delays. The Assessing Authority was instructed to decide the case on merits, affording all parties a fair hearing and passing a speaking order with reasons provided. The liberty to challenge the order and pursue other legal remedies was reserved for both parties, emphasizing expeditious resolution and digital proceedings if feasible.

The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving all issues open for further legal recourse. The judgment was concluded with the hope that future legal actions would be handled promptly and in accordance with the law. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of, with the respondents' counsel tasked with communicating the order electronically to the appropriate authority.

---