Assessment orders must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot lack reasoning, as such violations render the order invalid.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

Heard Ms. Samita Chitranshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and perused the material brought on record.

2. The present writ petition is being disposed of with the consent of the parties as the preliminary issue raised before this Court pertains to not adherence of principles of natural justice.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be running an industry, which consumes water and is liable to pay cess in terms of the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred as Cess Act). The case of petitioner was that in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 3 of the 1977 Act, the petitioner was submitting the returns with regard to the consumption of water, however, without following the mandatory provisions as required under Section 3 , assessment order came to be passed against the petitioner on 15.03.2013 assessing the liability against the petitioner for the period 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2012.

4. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the said assessment order was passed in pursuance to provisions contained in the Cess Act, however, neither any opportunity of hearing was granted before passing the assessment order nor any basis for determining the liability was indicated in the assessment order, which is on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition and is also under challenge in the present proceedings. It is further argued that on the basis of the assessment order, which does not discloses any reason whatsoever and also on the face of it, is without affording any opportunity of hearing, was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an appeal under Section 13 of the said Act before the appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act. It is further argued that before the appellate authority specific ground with regard non grant of any opportunity of hearing or any material based upon which the assessment order was passed and also pleaded that the fact that no reasons for passing the assessment orders were indicated, the appeal deserved to be allowed, however, the appellate authority although recorded said submission, did not deal with the same while deciding the appeal, as such, said assessment order and orders in Appeal are being challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition.

5. The counsel for the respondent argues that against the appellate order passed under Section 13 of the Cess Act, 1977, an appeal lies before the National Green Tribunal by virtue of section 16(d) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and, as such, the petitioner should be relegated to avail the alternative remedy under the said Act. He further argues that in terms of the provisions of 1977 Act, the appeal provided under Section 13 is in fact a post decisional hearing and thus, submission of the counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was granted at the time of the assessment order merits rejection on that count also as the petitioner was admittedly heard at the appellate stage.

6. In response to the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent with regard to the availability of alternative remedy, the counsel for the petitioner argues that it is fairly well settled that where the orders impugned are in violation of principle of natural justice or without jurisdiction, the availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar. She places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of