The court reinforced the principle of natural justice, stating that parties must be given a fair opportunity to be heard before adverse decisions are made.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Zeeshan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition was filed basically to enforce the rights of the petitioner under the Interest Waiver Scheme, 2021 introduced by the State Government allowing for waiver of penalties imposed for late deposit of tax under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, Central Sales Tax Act, 2056, U.P. VAT Act, 2008, U.P. Entry Tax Act, 2007 and also U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979. At that stage, the petitioner's application seeking waiver of penalty for Assessment Year, 2015-16 / 2016-17 were pending. In that regard vide order dated 05.04.2022, a direction was issued by this Court, requiring the competent authority to decide the petitioner's application seeking waiver of penalty.

3. By means of the Counter Affidavit filed by the revenue authorities, a communication (Annexure-C.A-1) has been brought on record to indicate that the individual applications seeking waiver of penalty have been rejected, in terms of the following order :-

4. Exact, similar orders have been passed on each of the applications filed by the petitioner. At the same time, it appears that the applications had been filed by the petitioner only to seek waiver of penalty imposed under Section 54(1)(1)(a) of the U.P. V.A.T Act, 2008. Those penalties would be referable to delay in payment of tax.

5. Seen in that light, orders passed by the revenue authorities appear to be defective. While we may have allowed the petitioner to amend the writ petition and formally seek proper relief, it is also noted that the above orders have been passed by the revenue authorities without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. In view of the facts noted above, we find no useful purpose may be served in keeping the writ petition pending or calling for Counter Affidavit at this stage, especially in view of the order proposed to be passed.

7. Purely in the interest of justice and on prima facie consideration, it appears, the penalty sought to be waived was penalty imposed for late deposit of tax. Therefore, impugned ex parte orders rejecting the petitioner's applications seeking waiver of penalty dated 23.12.2020 are set aside. A direction is issued to the respondent no. 4 to pass a fresh order on the petitioner's application after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such compliance may be made within a period of three months from today. If the petitioner is found entitled to relief on merit, the same may not be denied solely for reason of time having passed.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.