Pre-deposit waiver hearing cannot be denied after a court-directed hearing and notice, or the order is vitiated.
A personal hearing on a pre-deposit waiver application is not always mandatory, but once a court has specifically directed the appellate authority to hear the application and the authority has itself fixed a hearing date, it cannot dispose of the matter ex parte without cogent reasons. Such departure breaches fair procedure and the binding effect of the earlier judicial direction. Orders directing pre-deposit, passed without an effective hearing in those circumstances, are unsustainable and liable to be quashed; the waiver applications must be reheard and decided afresh after personal hearing, with recovery stayed until that decision.
Issues: (i) whether the appellate authority could dispose of the petitioner's applications for waiver of pre-deposit without affording the personal hearing earlier directed by the Court and pursuant to the notices issued for hearing; (ii) whether the impugned orders directing pre-deposit, passed without an effective hearing, were sustainable.
Issue (i): whether the appellate authority could dispose of the petitioner's applications for waiver of pre-deposit without affording the personal hearing earlier directed by the Court and pursuant to the notices issued for hearing.
Analysis: A personal hearing is not invariably mandatory for applications under the proviso to Section 35F, but the earlier order of the Court had specifically directed the appellate authority to fix dates and hear the waiver applications. That direction had attained finality. The authority had also issued notices fixing a hearing date, which indicated an exercise of discretion in favour of granting hearing. Having adopted that course, it could not dispense with the hearing without cogent reasons. The resulting ex parte disposal offended the requirement of fair procedure and the binding effect of the earlier judicial direction.
Conclusion: The petitioner's right to hearing was violated, and the disposal of the waiver applications without such hearing was not lawful.
Issue (ii): whether the impugned orders directing pre-deposit, passed without an effective hearing, were sustainable.
Analysis: Since the applications were decided in breach of the Court's earlier direction and without the hearing that had been fixed, the orders were vitiated. The appellate authority's assumption of due service, despite the postal endorsement and absence of a fresh opportunity, did not provide a valid basis to sustain the orders.
Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, the waiver applications were required to be reheard and decided afresh after personal hearing, and recovery proceedings remained stayed till such decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a court's final direction requires a hearing on a pre-deposit waiver application, the appellate authority cannot later decide the application without that hearing, once it has itself fixed a hearing date, unless cogent reasons justify departure; such disposal is vitiated by breach of fair procedure and final judicial directions.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
