Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings leads to setting aside ex-parte order and fresh opportunity.

Violation of principles of natural justice was found where an assessing authority fixed a hearing date but did not pass an order or communicate a fresh date, yet concluded proceedings ex parte; HC reasoned that once the matter was fixed for hearing the authority was obliged either to decide on that date or to notify another date, and absence of any statutory sanction for ex parte disposition rendered the process unfair, hence the ex parte order was unjustified and set aside. Consequential relief: the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 was quashed and the petitioner granted two weeks to file a reply with supporting documents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order dated 20.11.2023 passed under Section 74 (9) of the UPGST Act, 2017. Typographical error in the notice issued on DRC-01. Delay in proceedings and lack of communication of next hearing date. Allegation of ex-parte nature of the order due to breach of natural justice.

Challenge to Order dated 20.11.2023:
The petitioner contested the proceedings initiated with a notice under Section 74 of the Act on 20.05.2023. A typographical error was noted in the notice issued on DRC-01, wrongly describing it to be issued under Section 74(5) of the Act instead of Section 74(1). The petitioner did file a reply to the notice on 26.07.2023. However, there was a significant delay in further proceedings, with a reminder notice issued on 31.10.2023, granting only five days to furnish documents, and the final order being passed on 20.11.2023 without fixing a further date or giving the petitioner any opportunity.

Breach of Natural Justice:
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the ex-parte nature of the order, arguing that it was passed hastily without proper communication or allowing sufficient time for compliance. The assessing authority failed to pass an order on the date fixed or communicate the next date, leading to an unfair situation where the petitioner was not given a chance to present their case effectively. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice in ensuring fairness in proceedings and highlighted the lack of provision under the Act for ex-parte proceedings in such circumstances.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the order dated 20.11.2023, directing the petitioner to treat it as a final notice and file a reply with supporting documents within two weeks. The respondent was instructed to fix a hearing date with at least one week's notice to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order after hearing both parties. The court emphasized the need for proper communication, adherence to natural justice principles, and avoiding unnecessary haste in concluding proceedings to uphold fairness and transparency in legal processes.

---