Effective hearing under GST: writ relief allowed where truncated opportunity and natural justice breach vitiated adjudication.

An adjudication order under the GST regime was quashed where the assessee was given only a truncated and ineffective opportunity to file additional material, and the request for adjournment was not shown to have been considered. The High Court held that a statutory hearing must be real, reasonable and effective, and that mere participation in the personal hearing did not cure the breach of natural justice. It further held that the availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ intervention where the challenge went to the fairness of the adjudicatory process itself. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing and considering all contentions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned adjudication order was vitiated for denial of a real and effective opportunity of hearing and breach of natural justice; (ii) Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred interference under writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned adjudication order was vitiated for denial of a real and effective opportunity of hearing and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The respondent issued a reminder requiring additional material within a truncated period, leaving the petitioner less than one effective working day to assemble voluminous records, while the request for adjournment was not shown to have been considered. Mere participation in the personal hearing did not cure the defect, because the opportunity under the statutory hearing provisions had to be real, reasonable and effective. Passing the order on the very day the hearing concluded reinforced the inference that the material may not have been adequately considered.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was held to be vitiated by breach of natural justice and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: An alternate remedy does not preclude writ intervention where the impugned order is alleged to have been made in violation of natural justice. Since the defect went to the fairness of the adjudicatory process itself, the appellate remedy was not treated as an effective bar.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after setting aside the impugned order, with directions to afford a proper hearing and consider all contentions in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: When an adjudication under the GST regime is passed after granting only an illusory opportunity of hearing and in undue haste, the order is liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an appeal.

---