J M D News & Advertisers Vs State of Uttarakhand and others (Uttarakhand High Court)
The Uttarakhand High Court considered a writ petition filed by J M D News & Advertisers challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the recovery citation dated 22.02.2025, and the dismissal of its appeal. The adjudicating authority had passed the original order on 12.12.2023. The petitioner had challenged that order through an appeal under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 28.02.2025 as being beyond the prescribed limitation.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that its reply to the show-cause notice issued in GSTDRC01 on 22.10.2023 had not been considered by the adjudicating authority. According to the petitioner, the non-consideration of the reply resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and warranted quashing of the adjudication order.
The Department, in its counter-affidavit, did not dispute that the show-cause notice prescribed 23.10.2023 as the last date for submission of the reply. It was also not disputed that the petitioner had submitted its reply manually on 22.10.2023, before the prescribed deadline. The Department’s stand was that the reply had not been submitted electronically and therefore had not been considered. It was further stated that the petitioner had not appeared on the date fixed for hearing and therefore could not contend that the reply had not been considered.
The High Court rejected the technical objection concerning the mode of submission. Since the reply had been submitted within the prescribed time, the Court was not inclined to accept that it could be disregarded merely because it had been submitted manually rather than electronically. The Court also rejected the contention that the petitioner’s non-appearance at the hearing justified non-consideration of its written reply.
The Court observed that once a reply had been submitted by the petitioner, it became the duty of the adjudicating authority to consider it while passing the adjudication order, even if the petitioner was not present at the hearing. The Court found that failure to consider the timely submitted reply constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
Although the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed limitation, the High Court held that the non-consideration of the reply went to the root of the matter and therefore warranted interference. Accordingly, the Court quashed the adjudicating authority’s order dated 12.12.2023 and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after considering the petitioner’s reply dated 22.10.2023. The Court further directed that, if the petitioner requested a personal hearing, such hearing should be provided before any decision was taken.
The writ petition was ordered accordingly, and any pending applications were also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the recovery citation dated 22.02.2025 and, also for a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. It appears that the order of the adjudicating authority dated 12.12.2023 was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in appeal filed under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act, but it has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 28.02.2025, on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation prescribed under the law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the adjudicating authority dated 12.12.2023 is wholly illegal inasmuch as, the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to show-cause notice issued in GSTDRC01 on 22.10.2023 has not at all been taken into consideration. He submits that the non-consideration of the reply of the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order of the adjudicating authority deserves to be quashed.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Department and in which it has not been disputed that in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner the last date fixed for submission of the reply was 23.10.2023. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner had submitted his reply manually on 22.10.2023 i.e. well before the last date fixed for submitting reply. However, the only stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that since the reply was not submitted electronically, therefore, it has not been considered. It is further stated that the petitioner also did not present himself on the date fixed for hearing and, therefore, also he cannot contend that his reply has not been considered.
5. As it is not disputed before us that the reply was submitted by the petitioner well within time and, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the technical objection that the reply should have been submitted electronically only and then only it was liable to be considered.
6. The other contention that since the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed therefore reply was not considered is also not sustainable in law. In case the reply was submitted by the petitioner it becomes the duty of the adjudicating authority to consider the same while passing the adjudication order even though if the petitioner was not present at the time of hearing. Thus, we find gross violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
7. As the non-consideration of reply goes to the root of the matter, therefore, we feel inclined to interfere in the present matter even though the appeal was filed beyond the limitation prescribed.
8.The order in original passed by the adjudicating authority dated 12.12.2023 is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 22.10.2023. In case the petitioner requests for personal hearing, the same shall also be provided to the petitioner before any decision is taken.
9.The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
