2025 (8) TMI 1463 - HC - GST

Initial show-cause notice invalid for breach of natural justice; authorities must issue fresh notice despite appeal delay

Reynard Corporate Solutions Private Limited Versus State of Up And 2 Others

Reynard Corporate Solutions Private Limited Versus State of Up And 2 Others - 2025:AHC:145108 - DB ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an adjudicatory order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act can be sustained where the show-cause notice and related initiation omitted or misstated dates for reply and personal hearing such that the date of personal hearing preceded the date fixed for filing the reply. 2. Whether failure to afford a valid opportunity of personal hearing in adjudication under Section 73 of the GST Act constitutes a breach of principles of natural justice warranting quashing of an ex-parte order even if statutory appeal periods have elapsed. 3. Whether, upon finding procedural infirmity in the initiating notice, the appropriate remedy is quashing the impugned order with liberty to the department to reissue a valid show-cause notice and proceed afresh. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of show-cause notice where date of personal hearing precedes date fixed for filing reply Legal framework: Adjudication under Section 73 of the GST Act requires that show-cause notices, replies and hearings be conducted in accordance with statutory procedure and principles of natural justice, including a meaningful opportunity to file a reply and to be heard before any adverse order is passed. Precedent treatment: The Court applied a coordinate-bench decision addressing similar defects in the notice (dates for reply and hearing inconsistent), treating that precedent as applicable and followed its reasoning. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the record and found that the initiation documents contained inconsistent or incorrect dates-specifically, the personal hearing was slated before the date allowed for filing the reply. The Court observed that such anomalies in the initiation documents are not merely technical but go to the core of an affected party's ability to participate in adjudication. The State's own administrative communication (an office memorandum highlighted in the precedent) condemned practices where the reply date is not prior to the hearing date and mandated discontinuance of such practices. The Court reasoned that when the show-cause notice at initiation is wrong in this manner, it is the duty of the authorities to issue a fresh, legally compliant notice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A show-cause notice that sets a personal hearing date prior to the reply date renders the initiation invalid and the resulting adjudicatory order unsustainable for failure to afford a proper opportunity to be heard. Conclusion: The initiation via the flawed show-cause notice was invalid; the defect warranted setting aside the subsequent ex-parte adjudication. Issue 2 - Breach of principles of natural justice by denial of valid personal hearing; effect of limitation on remedy Legal framework: Principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) require that a person facing adjudication be given notice and a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse decision is taken. Judicial review under Article 226 can be exercised where natural justice is violated. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on and followed the reasoning of the coordinate-bench decision which held that denial of personal hearing (except in narrow situations where the noticee waives or fails to avail it) vitiates the order and that the self-imposed bar of alternative remedy cannot protect such an order. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished situations where a noticee expressly waives hearing or fails to avail an offered hearing from those where the procedural instrument itself precludes effective participation. The Court held that routine or systemic denial of hearing cannot be permitted to stand. Regarding limitation, the Court acknowledged that the writ petition was filed after the statutory appeal period but held that where there is a breach of natural justice, the Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in exceptional cases despite statutory time bars because the denial concerned fundamental procedural fairness. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Violation of the right to be heard, by reason of defective initiation or denial of personal hearing, is a ground to quash the adjudicatory order regardless of the lapse of the statutory appeal period in exceptional cases. Conclusion: The ex-parte order was passed in gross violation of natural justice and could be interfered with by the Court notwithstanding delay in filing the writ petition. Issue 3 - Appropriate remedy where procedural infirmity is found: quash and liberty to reinitiate Legal framework: Where procedural infirmity vitiates adjudication, courts may quash the impugned order and either grant relief to the noticee or remit to the authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law, preserving both legality and administrative efficacy. Precedent treatment: The Court followed the coordinate-bench approach that, on finding denial of personal hearing or defective initiation, the impugned order should be set aside and the department be permitted to issue a fresh notice and proceed lawfully. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court concluded that complete annulment of the impugned ex-parte order was necessary to vindicate the noticee's right to be heard. However, recognizing the department's ability to conduct a valid adjudication, the Court limited relief to quashing the order while permitting re-initiation by issuing a fresh, legally compliant show-cause notice and proceeding in accordance with law. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The correct remedial course when initiation is defective and natural justice is breached is to quash the impugned order and allow the authority to reissue a proper notice and re-adjudicate, rather than precluding the department from any future action. Conclusion: The ex-parte order was quashed and set aside; the department is at liberty to issue a fresh show-cause notice and proceed in accordance with law. Cross-reference The conclusions under Issues 1-3 are interlinked: the defect in the notice (Issue 1) constituted a denial of natural justice (Issue 2), which necessitated the remedial measure of quashing the impugned order with liberty to reinitiate the process lawfully (Issue 3). The Court explicitly followed the reasoning of the precedent that flagged similar administrative defects and mandated corrective action.