RECTIFICATION OF ERROR.

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Dear experts

The adjudicating authority has passed an order under Section 73 by blatantly discarding the solid merits which has culminated in the fastening of huge tax, interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the impugned order, an application for rectification of error under Section 161 has been filed coupled with documented evidence and binding judicial rulings. The authority has issued an endorsement indicating the date for personal hearing. Shockingly it first says that, though there is no merit/reason to consider such application, personal hearing is given on the grounds of “principles of natural justice”.

Since the authority has mentally decided to reject (mplicitly rejected) such application, is there any scope for natural justice? Having delivered “injustice” before the personal hearing, then what is the significance of PH? What is the recourse for such biased and prejudiced behaviour by the quasi-judicial authority?

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Plz read  it as [implicitely rejected]

[KASTURI SETHI]

Dear Sir Ji,

 In such a situation, we shall have to cool our heels. Let us wait for which way the winds blow.  

Use your art of drafting and convincing with logical and legal force in the course of personal hearing. Thus I am hopeful that P.H. will not prove empty formality. You have an opportunity in your hands to defend the interest of your client on merits. 

              

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Dear Sir ji
You’ve raised a serious concern that strikes at the core of quasi-judicial discipline — the adherence to principles of natural justice and impartial adjudication. 

Much obliged for your support. 

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Dear Sir ji

Apparently there is violation of the following provision of Section 75[6] by the adjudicating authority while passing order under Section 73:

(6) The proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Dear Sir Ji,

If it is so, the Order-in-Original may be held as invalid by the First Appellate Authority or GSTAT or High Court or Supreme Court. There are many case laws wherein strictures have been passed against the Adjudicating Authorities along with fine to be paid by the Adjudicating Authority. You can easily trace out.

Let us hope for fair social justice at the hands of Proper Officer while passing the Rectification Order.

[YAGAY andSUN]

RECTIFICATION OF ERROR.

The issue at hand raises significant concerns regarding the principles of natural justice, fairness, and procedural propriety in quasi-judicial proceedings. Under the legal framework, including the provisions of Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and Section 161 of the Act dealing with rectification of errors, a quasi-judicial authority is bound to apply its mind impartially and independently when considering an application for rectification of errors. Natural justice, as a cardinal principle of law, mandates that no person should be condemned unheard. It also requires that decisions should not be pre-determined, and all parties must have a fair opportunity to present their case before any adverse action is taken.

In the context you describe, where the adjudicating authority has already "mentally decided" to reject the application, the giving of a personal hearing (PH) on the grounds of "principles of natural justice" could be seen as an empty formality, which undermines the very essence of these principles. The fact that the authority has already made up its mind, as implied by the endorsement, raises a strong presumption of bias or prejudgment. A personal hearing in such circumstances serves little purpose, as the authority’s preconceived notion about the matter will likely color its evaluation, making the hearing a mere procedural step without real consideration.

This conduct appears contrary to well-established legal principles. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the principles of natural justice include the right to a fair and unbiased hearing, and where an authority has already made up its mind or is unable to approach the matter with an open mind, such a process can be challenged as a violation of procedural fairness. In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT), the Court emphasized that the right to a fair hearing is part of the due process of law and cannot be compromised. Furthermore, in cases like S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980 (9) TMI 280 - SUPREME COURT), the Court reiterated that any predisposition or pre-determined decision by an adjudicating authority, particularly in administrative or quasi-judicial matters, can vitiate the entire proceedings.

In view of the above, if the quasi-judicial authority has indeed prejudged the matter before the hearing, the recourse for an aggrieved party would be to challenge the order before an appropriate appellate or higher judicial forum. This could be done on the grounds of a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness, emphasizing that the authority's conduct suggests a lack of impartiality. Additionally, if any further action is taken without rectifying this bias, the proceedings can be challenged on the grounds of administrative overreach and prejudice. The filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, is a potential course of action to seek appropriate relief.

Thus, the importance of a personal hearing lies not only in the opportunity to be heard but also in the guarantee of an unbiased and fair decision-making process. If this is compromised from the outset, any outcome following such a hearing can be rendered legally unsustainable.

***

AI Summary

Quasi-Judicial Authority Fails Natural Justice Test in GST Order, Raising Serious Procedural Concerns Under Section 73 A quasi-judicial authority issued an order under Section 73 of the GST Act, seemingly disregarding substantive merits. An application for rectification was filed, and a personal hearing was scheduled. However, the authority appeared to have pre-determined the rejection, raising concerns about the principles of natural justice. The forum discusses potential legal recourse, including challenging the order through appellate mechanisms or constitutional remedies due to perceived bias and procedural impropriety.