The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, in ensuring a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing before making any decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated September 14, 2021 passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Fatehpur under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the tax period 2018-19 and the appellate order dated October 5, 2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2, (Appeal)-III, State Tax, Prayagraj.

2. The first ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had cancelled its registration voluntarily on September 18, 2019, whereas the notice under Section 74 of the Act was given to it only by way of uploading the same on the web portal on a subsequent date. He submits that the notice, that has been issued, was issued in the year 2021 or in late December 2020 as the date fixed for hearing was January 12, 2021. He further submits that as the petitioner had already cancelled its registration voluntarily, it was not required to check the web portal. Further ground has also been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the respondent No.3 proceeding on the basis of a Special Investigation Branch report (SIB report) behind the back of the petitioner without providing a copy of the same to the petitioner. He further states that the appellate authority also did not grant a second opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submits that the date fixed for hearing was August 22, 2023, on which date the petitioner could not appear. Subsequently, the appellate authority passed an order on October 5, 2023 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and reaffirming the order passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax/respondent No.3.

3. It is trite law that principles of audi alteram partem are required to be followed by the authority and giving a go by to the same results in violation of the principles of natural justice. One may examine the development of the law in relation to natural justice. The Division Bench of this Court in S.R. Cold Storage v. Union of India and Others reported in 2022 SCC online (All) 550; {[2022] 448 ITR 37 (All)} held as follows:

“25. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. It is an approved rule of fair play.

26. The principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice.

27. The expression "civil consequences" encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations, and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life.

28. Natural justice has been variously defined by different judges, for instance a duty to act fairly, the substantial requirements of justice, the natural sense of what is right and wrong, fundamental justice and fair-play in action. Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have b