Authority must provide personal hearing before deciding appeals on zero-rated export service refund claims

Bombay HC directed the Appellate Authority to provide personal hearing to petitioner in appeals concerning refund claims for zero-rated export services supplies. The court found violation of natural justice principles as no hearing was granted. Despite appeals filed between 2019-2021, the Authority failed to decide within reasonable time, causing prejudice to petitioner. HC ordered the Authority to pass orders within six weeks after providing personal hearing opportunities in each appeal. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues in this case involve seeking a fair opportunity of personal hearing in appeals filed against specific orders and expeditious passing of reasoned orders by the Appellate Authority.

Fair Opportunity of Personal Hearing:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus or certiorari to direct the Joint Commissioner of State Tax Appeals to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity of personal hearing in appeals against various orders. The petitioner contended that despite attending personal hearings, a record of the hearing was not provided, and the hearings were conducted by an assistant instead of the Joint Commissioner. The court held that the principles of natural justice required the Appellate Authority to give a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing any orders in the appeals. Consequently, the Respondent No. 4 was directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner in each of the appeals.

Expeditious Passing of Reasoned Orders:
The petitioner also sought a writ to direct the Respondent No. 4 to expeditiously pass reasoned orders in the appeals. The court noted that the appeals were filed in 2019, 2020, and 2021, and despite the passage of time, orders had not been passed. Emphasizing the importance of timely decisions, the court held that even without a statutory time limit, orders must be passed within a reasonable period. Failure to do so would prejudice the petitioner's rights and business operations guaranteed under the Constitution. Therefore, the court directed Respondent No. 4 to decide the appeals within a fixed period of six weeks from the date of the order.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay directed the Appellate Authority to provide a fair opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in the appeals and to pass reasoned orders within six weeks. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring timely decisions to prevent prejudice to the petitioner's rights. No costs were awarded in this case.

---