2023 (8) TMI 1601 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Tax Department denied opportunity to submit documents during pandemic violates natural justice principles

M/s. Sanghi Jewellers Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner ST LTU and another

The Telangana HC set aside an order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) that denied the petitioner reasonable opportunity to ... Challenge to effectual orders dated 20.01.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) – respondent No. 1 - denial of reasonable opportunity to present additional documents due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in [2020 (6) TMI 390 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] and also taking note of the period during which the show cause notice was issued and the impugned order being passed both being at a time where the impact of Covid-19 was still blooming large in the entire country, it is inclined to endorse the same view and hold that it was a fit case where the petitioner could have been granted a reasonable period of time to adduce the additional documents which they intended to furnish and for which they had sought time by their correspondence dated 28.12.2020. The impugned effectual order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the 1st respondent is not sustainable and deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh orders after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, to adduce the additional documents which were demanded by the Department from the petitioners, in accordance with law, at the earliest. Conclusion - The importance of adhering to natural justice principles reinforced, especially in extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic, ensuring parties have a fair opportunity to present their case. Petition allowed by way of remand. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to present additional documents due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby violating principles of natural justice.Whether the impugned order dated 20.01.2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), is sustainable in light of the alleged procedural shortcomings.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Denial of Reasonable Opportunity and Violation of Natural JusticeRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case. The court referenced a previous decision in Writ Petition Nos. 7410 of 2020 and batch, which dealt with similar issues of procedural fairness during the COVID-19 pandemic.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner had requested additional time to submit documents due to the COVID-19 lockdown, which was a reasonable request given the circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to natural justice principles, especially during unprecedented times like a pandemic.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had communicated their inability to furnish documents promptly due to lockdown restrictions. The court found that the respondent's expectation for the petitioner to comply within a short timeframe was unreasonable.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles of natural justice, concluding that the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity to present their case due to the pandemic's impact.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the petitioner had sufficient time and had previously contested the case. However, the court found this argument unpersuasive given the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic.Conclusions: The court concluded that there was a gross violation of natural justice principles, warranting the setting aside of the impugned order.Issue 2: Sustainability of the Impugned OrderRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves procedural fairness in administrative orders, particularly under the context of the pandemic.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioner a fair chance to respond, thus failing to meet the standards of procedural fairness.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the show cause notice and subsequent order were issued during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which hindered the petitioner's ability to respond effectively.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles of fairness and reasonableness, determining that the impugned order was unsustainable.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's argument that the petitioner had ample opportunity was dismissed due to the pandemic's impact on procedural timelines.Conclusions: The court concluded that the order dated 20.01.2021 could not be sustained and required remand for fresh consideration.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'We are therefore of the opinion that there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair opportunity was denied to the petitioner by the 1st respondent to defend itself.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to natural justice principles, especially in extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic, ensuring parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the petitioner is given a reasonable opportunity to present additional documents.