Page 80 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

182 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
ural justice. It is trite and it is too elementary to require the citation of any judicial au-
thority that where the decision taken by the decision maker would inflict adverse civil
consequence on the affected party, then the elementary principles of reasonableness, fair-
ness and natural justice would require that the affected party is heard by the decision
maker before the latter renders decision thereon. The Head of the Department concerned
may ensure that necessary instructions are given to the officials concerned in the De-
partment so that unnecessary litigations of this nature could be easily avoided. The af-
fected party cannot be blamed for approaching the court for ventilating his grievances
and if elementary principles of natural justice and fairness are adhered to by the decision
maker, the litigations of this nature could be substantially reduced. [para 5]
Petition disposed of
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Harisankar V. Menon and Smt. Meera V.
Menon, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Smt. Thushara James, Govt. Pleader, for the
Respondent.
[Judgment]. - The case projected in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as
follows :-
That the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of trading of motor
cycles, has entered into a lease agreement with reference to an additional place of
business at Karunagappally. The above intention of the petitioner to start addi-
tional place of business was intimated to the jurisdictional officer, which can be
seen from Ext.P-1. It is stated that a consignment of 10 motor cycles for exhibition
purposes at the new premises have been detained by the 1st respondent, as ac-
cording to the 1st respondent, the petitioner cannot have such additional place of
business at Karunagappally. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent does
not have authority to do so and only the jurisdictional authority has power to do
so. The above detention of goods was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.
(C) No. 674/2020 before this Court. When the said case came up on 13-1-2020,
this Court had posted the same to 16-1-2020 based on the submission of the
Learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has to attend a personal hearing
on 14-1-2020. But that the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P-7 order demanding tax
and penalty on 13-1-2020 itself without granting an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. It is in the above facts and circumstances that the petitioner has filed
the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers :
“(i) To quash Ext.P-7 order issued by the 1st respondent by the issue of
a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.
(ii) To direct the 1st respondent to release the goods and the lorry de-
tained as per Exts.P-5 to P-5 (d) unconditionally forthwith by the is-
sue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.
(iii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the
costs of these proceedings.”
2. Heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Dr. Thushara James, the Learned Government Pleader appearing
for the official respondents.
3. Later, the petitioner sought leave of this Court to withdraw W.P. (C)
No. 674/2020 with liberty to him to file a fresh Writ Petition to challenge the pre-
sent Impugned Ext. P-7 order. This Court as per judgment dated 14-1-2020 has
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  80