In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte order issued by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) due to the department’s failure to notify the petitioner of personal hearing dates via email, despite a specific request. Instead, notifications were posted solely on the GST portal. Ebony Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner is a private limited company registered under the CGST/SGST Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had previously issued an order dated August 31, 2023, against Ebony Automobiles. Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was to be reviewed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals)-5. Notices for a personal hearing were issued on two dates, January 5 and January 30, 2024.

These were uploaded exclusively on the GST portal. The petitioner, via a formal letter dated February 6, 2024, requested that future notifications for hearing dates be sent to their specified email address. This letter was received by the respondent on February 7, 2024. Despite this request, the petitioner was not informed via email and only notified on the GST portal about hearing dates on February 20 and March 1, 2024. Due to the lack of email notification, the petitioner did not appear on the specified hearing dates. Subsequently, the respondent dismissed the appeal ex-parte on March 28, 2024, citing the petitioner’s absence.

The petitioner challenged an ex-parte order issued by the respondent on March 28, 2024, before the Karnataka High Court arguing that he requested notification of hearing dates via email but the respondent failed to honor this request, which prevented their appearance on the scheduled dates. The petitioner’s counsel sought annulment of the impugned order and reinstatement of their appeal to allow for a fair hearing. Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar heard the case and observed that by not adhering to the petitioner’s explicit request for email notifications, the respondent effectively denied the petitioner a fair opportunity to appear for the hearings. The court viewed this as a violation of the principles of natural justice, which requires that individuals be given a fair chance to present their case.

The court emphasized that the respondent’s failure to notify the petitioner in their preferred manner deprived them of an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing. Thus, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to reconsider the appeal with a fresh hearing per the law. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the respondent on September 12, 2024, without further notice. The writ petitioner was allowed.