Page 81 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

2020 ] AHNAS MOHAMMED v. ASSTT. STATE TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPTT., KOLLAM 183
dismissed W.P. (C) No. 674/2020 as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to
work out his remedies in the manner known to law. Subsequently, in the present
Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 20-1-2020, this Court after hearing both sides passed
interim order dated 23-1-2020 directing that the vehicle and the goods seized
pursuant to Ext.P-5 series have to be released to the petitioner on his furnishing
bank guarantee for the value of the tax and penalty shown in the impugned pro-
ceedings, etc. It is now submitted by both sides that in compliance with the
abovesaid interim order dated 23-1-2020, the 1st respondent has released the
abovesaid goods and vehicles as the petitioner had submitted the abovesaid
bank guarantee. In the said order, this Court had directed the 1st respondent to
furnish factual instructions to the Learned Government Pleader as to whether the
petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the im-
pugned decision as per Ext.P-7 order dated 13-1-2020 was rendered by the said
officer.
4. Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, Dr. Thusha-
ra James, the Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would
submit that she has not been specifically furnished instructions as to whether or
not the petitioner had been personally heard by the 1st respondent before the
issuance of the impugned Ext. P-7 order dated 13-1-2020, but that the impugned
proceedings at Ext.P-7 would broadly indicate that the petitioner was not heard,
as in cases of this nature, where the party is heard, the said factum would find a
place in the impugned proceedings. In this case, it is to be noted that none other
than the 1st respondent has issued Ext. P-5(b) notice dated 6-1-2020 directing that
the petitioner should appear for personal hearing on 14-1-2020. For reasons only
known to the 1st respondent, he has chosen to pass orders as per Ext. P-7 on 13-
1-2020, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and
even before the date fixed by him for the petitioner’s personal hearing. It is in-
deed very startling that in a case of this nature, a responsible taxation officer like
the 1st respondent violates the elementary cannons of fairness and natural justice
by not even affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affected
party. It is all the more surprising as none other than the 1st respondent has is-
sued Ext.P-5(b) notice dated 6-1-20020 directing the petitioner to attend for a per-
sonally hearing in the matter on 14-1-2020. Even now, the 1st respondent has not
chosen to give specific factual instructions to the Learned Government Pleader as
to whether he had afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the peti-
tioner. The abovesaid facts asserted by the petitioner have not been controverted
by the respondents. Therefore, it is only to be held that the 1st respondent has
not granted personal hearing to the petitioner before taking a decision as per
Ext.P-7 order dated 13-1-2020, even though he had invited the petitioner for a
personal hearing to be conducted on 14-1-2020 as per Ext.P-5(d) notice dated 6-1-
2020. Hence it is only to be held that the impugned order at Ext.P-7 is illegal and
ultra vires and the same has been issued in patent violation of the elementary
cannons of natural justice and fairness and the said order is liable to be quashed.
It is all the more so, Ext.P-7 order has been rendered on 13-1-2020 by the 1st re-
spondent at a point of time, the previous writ proceedings as per W.P. (C) No.
674/2020 was pending on the file of this Court, which fact was also very much
known to the 1st respondent. Accordingly, it is so ordered and declared. Conse-
quently, it is ordered that Ext.P-7 order will stand set aside and the matter in re-
lation to the proposed penalty thereto shall stand remitted to the 1st respondent
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  81