Telangana HC set aside order as reply of petitioner was not considered

OLA Fleet Technologies Private Limited Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court)

Telangana High Court examined the writ petition filed by Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Article 226, challenging an order issued on April 25, 2024. The primary grievance was that although Ola Fleet had responded to a show-cause notice issued in December 2023 with a detailed reply on April 16, 2024, the authority erroneously concluded that no response had been submitted. This error was apparent on the tax portal, which indicated the status as “Reply furnished, pending for order by tax officer.” Ola Fleet argued that the oversight violated its rights to submit a defense and attend a personal hearing. During the hearing, the respondent’s counsel was unable to refute the petitioner’s claim regarding the status recorded on the portal. The court concluded that the authority’s disregard of the reply amounted to a breach of natural justice, as it prevented proper consideration of the petitioner’s defense. Consequently, the High Court set aside the April order, instructing the authority to review Ola Fleet’s reply and resume proceedings from that stage in accordance with the law.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

This petition filed under Article  226  of  the  Constitution assails the Order-in-Original dated 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-1).

2. The principle ground of attack to this order is that when the petitioner was put to show-cause notice dated 12.2023, the petitioner filed reply dated 16.04.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the photocopy of portal at page No.36 submits that the ‘status’ shows  that:  ‘Reply  furnished, pending for order by tax officer’. It is urged  that  reply  was  on record, but learned Authority opined that the petitioner failed to submit his reply. This runs contrary to record and thereby, the valuable right of the petitioner to defend through reply as well as right of personal hearing was taken away.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer on the basis of counter

4. We have heard the parties at length.

5. In the counter affidavit as well as during the oral submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents could not explain the finding given in the portal (page No.36). The said recording in the  portal i.e., ‘Reply furnished, pending for order by tax officer’ makes it clear that the petitioner’s reply to show-cause notice was received by the respondents. Thus, finding given by the Authority in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to submit his reply is factually incorrect and cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. If the reply of the petitioner is not considered, the principles of natural justice were grossly violated. For  this singular reason alone, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated  04.2024  and  the  Authority  is directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the show- cause notice dated 27.12.2023 and proceed further in accordance with law from that stage. There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.