Case Title: M/s. M.P. Jay Jagannath Transport, Kendujhar v. State Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Keonjhar and Others
Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Petition No.: W.P.(C) No. 31137 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 08.01.2025
Relevant Section: Section 73 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (pari materia to Section 73 of the CGST Act)
Category: Adjudication — Ex parte assessment and opportunity of hearing
Facts (Paras 1–3)
The petitioner, M/s. M.P. Jay Jagannath Transport, was served with a show-cause notice dated 3 July 2023 under Section 73 of the OGST Act for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The reply was due by 3 August 2023, but the petitioner could only submit it on 2 November 2023 through Form DRC-06. Meanwhile, the adjudicating authority, citing the taxpayer’s silence, proceeded ex parte and passed an order dated 30 April 2024 based on the audit report.
The petitioner contended that the reply—though delayed—was filed before the order and accompanied by GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C, and hence should have been considered. The department opposed interference, arguing that the reply was beyond the permitted period and that due opportunity had already been given.
Questions for Determination
Whether the adjudicating authority could validly pass an ex parte order under Section 73 of the OGST Act when the taxpayer had filed a reply before the date of the final order, albeit after the stipulated deadline.
Court’s Observations (Paras 4–5)
The Bench noted that the taxpayer had indeed submitted documents and a reply before the passing of the impugned order. The Court observed that the petitioner had shown genuine intent to participate in the proceedings and that the delay did not justify outright denial of natural justice. Considering that Section 75 of the OGST/CGST Act requires opportunity of hearing before adverse orders, the Court found the ex parte adjudication improper when material submissions existed on record before the decision.
Judgment (Paras 5–6)
Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court set aside the ex parte order dated 30 April 2024 and directed the petitioner to communicate a certified copy of this order to the adjudicating authority by 24 January 2025 to obtain a personal hearing. Failing such communication, the impugned order would stand automatically restored. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case Name | Citation / Reference | Key Holding / Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| M.P. Jay Jagannath Transport v. STO, CT & GST Circle Keonjhar | W.P.(C) No. 31137 of 2024 (Orissa HC) | Ex parte order set aside; delayed reply filed before order entitles taxpayer to personal hearing under natural justice principles and Section 75 of OGST Act. |
Between Fine Lines
This ruling reaffirms that adjudication under Section 73 must not be mechanical. Even if the taxpayer’s response is delayed, once it is filed before the adjudication, the authority is duty-bound to consider it and grant a personal hearing. The judgment emphasizes that procedural fairness prevails over rigid timelines, and that denial of hearing vitiates the order.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
