Audi alteram partem bars rejection of revisions as time-barred when filed within permitted time and without hearing

Revision petitions filed within the time earlier permitted under Section 54 of the TNGST Act, 2006 could not be rejected as time-barred when the petitioner was not heard. An order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing violated the audi alteram partem rule, and that procedural breach rendered the limitation-based rejection unsustainable. The Madras HC held that the impugned orders were illegal and liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders rejecting the revision petitions as time-barred were sustainable when the revisions had been filed within the period granted earlier and the petitioner was not heard.

Analysis: The revision petitions had been filed within the time permitted by the earlier order granting liberty to invoke Section 54 of the TNGST Act, 2006. The impugned orders proceeded on limitation without hearing the petitioner. An order passed in breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot be sustained, particularly when the filing was within the prescribed time granted by the Court.

Conclusion: The rejection of the revision petitions as barred by limitation was illegal and liable to be set aside.

---