Natural justice requires a hearing before rejection of penalty waiver applications, with fresh consideration on merits.

Ex parte rejection of waiver applications for penalty on delayed tax deposit was found defective because the petitioner had not been heard. The High Court held that the applications required fresh consideration on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing, and the impugned rejection orders were set aside. It also noted that pending writ proceedings served no useful purpose once the challenged orders were on record, and that relief could not be denied merely because time had passed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte rejection of the petitioner's application for waiver of penalty under the Interest Waiver Scheme, 2021 was sustainable, and whether the matter required fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The applications were found to relate to penalty imposed for delayed deposit of tax under Section 54(1)(1)(a) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The rejection orders were passed without hearing the petitioner and were therefore treated as defective. The Court also noted that keeping the writ petition pending served no useful purpose once the impugned orders were brought on record. In the interest of justice, the Court proceeded on a prima facie basis and directed reconsideration of the waiver applications.

Conclusion: The ex parte rejection orders were set aside and the respondent authority was directed to decide the petitioner's applications afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was entitled to consideration on merits, and relief could not be denied merely because time had passed.

---