Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:171224-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1648 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/s R.K. Tanners Respondent :- Union of India and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Abrar Ahmad,S.C., Ankur Agarwal, S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3/Deputy Commissioner, SIB-D, Commercial Tax/State GST, Kanpur under Section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act') imposing a penalty of Rs.12,75,021.54 towards the SGST and CGST each and a fine of Rs.12,75,021.54 towards SGST and CGST each in lieu of confiscation of goods found during search conducted at the premises of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present is a case of violation of principle of natural justice wherein, the notice dated 01.01.2024 was issued for 8.1.2024, when though an exhaustive reply was filed by the petitioner on 3.1.2024, opportunity of personal hearing with effective assistance of Advocate was sought and it was indicated that matter may be taken up after first week of February, 2024 as the arguing counsel on account of health condition would be available in February, 2024.

3. Another show cause notice dated 1.2.2024 was issued wherein, petitioner was required to appear on 6.2.2024 to which a reply was filed reiterating the response already filed and it was indicated that some date after 10.2.2024 be fixed for personal hearing as the counsel would be returning back after treatment on 9.2.2024 and supporting material including tickets etc. of the counsel were indicated, as received on WhatsApp of the petitioner. Whereafter, nothing was heard by the petitioner for a long time and suddenly the order impugned dated 18.6.2024 was passed. 4. Submission has been made that after receipt of second show cause notice dated 1.2.2024, a specific prayer was made for fixing a date after 10.2.2024, which prayer was neither declined nor any communication was sent to the petitioner and after a passage of over four and half months, the order impugned was passed, which order is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. 5. It was emphasized that though the communication sent on 5.2.2024 has been noticed in the order impugned seeking a date after 10th February, 2024, even in the order impugned, no reason has been indicated for not accepting the same/order declining the same has been passed, which has resulted in passing of the order, which is grossly inappropriate.

6. Submission has also been made that though exhaustive response along with several judgements was filed, none of the pleas raised were taken into consideration and order impugned has been passed. 7. Submission has also been made that the order impugned has been passed far beyond the allegations levelled in the show cause notice and on the said count also, the order impugned is bad. 8. It was prayed that for failure to grant opportunity of personal hearing, the order impugned be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the authority. 9. Reliance has been placed on Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. & others (Writ Tax No. 199 of 2024) decided on 21.02.2024. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It has been submitted that twice show cause notice was issued and repeatedly time was sought and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not offered opportunity of personal hearing. On failure to avail the opportunity, the petitioner cannot allege violation of principle of natural justice and therefore, the plea raised in this regard cannot be sustained. 11. Submission has also been made that the impugned order is appealable and for availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition be dismissed. 12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on record.

13. The factual position is not in dispute wherein, on two occasions when the show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, it was also indicated that the representative of the petitioner company can appear in person and show cause. However, on both the occasions on account of non availability of the counsel, time was sought. 14. On second occasion, the date fixed was 6.2.2024 and the petitioner sought a date after 10.2.2024. Admittedly, the said communication was received by the respondent no. 3. However, no order on the said prayer either granting the same or declining was passed. It also appears that on the date fixed apparently, no order was passed and the order came to be passed after four and half months and therefore, during the said period, the petitioner also apparently, could not approach the authority for personal hearing, waiting for another notice fixing a date for personal hearing. 15. There also appears to be substance in the submissions made regarding non consideration of the pleas raised in response to the show cause notice, apparently, on account of the fact that hearing in the matter did not take place and the order was passed after a gap of about four and half months from the date the matter was fixed before the authority.

16. The order impugned though indicates the communication seeking date for personal hearing beyond 10.02.2024, however, no determination/reaction to the said prayer was indicated even in the order impugned, which clearly indicates that the prayer was not even adverted to and therefore, apparently the order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. 17. Once a prayer was made seeking a date beyond the date fixed, it was incumbent upon the authority to either grant the same or decline and communicate the same to the petitioner. 18. So far as the plea raised on the merit of the order impugned is concerned, the same does not require consideration by this Court, at this stage. 19. The plea raised about availability of alternative remedy cannot be accepted as violation of principle of natural justice is an exception to the said plea. 20. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 18.06.2024, Annexure-1, is quashed and set aside. 21. The respondent no. 3/Deputy Commissioner, SIB-D, Commercial Tax/State GST, Kanpur is directed to fix a fresh date for hearing with at least one week notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order, after hearing the petitioner. 22. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 24.10.2024 nd (Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad