2021 (7) TMI 1339 - HC - GST

Violation of the principles of natural justice - an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated u/s 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 not provided - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed reply within the time nor sought for personal hearing as per Section 75(4) of the Act. But, equally when the authorities decided to pass adverse orders, then, necessarily personal hearing has to be given as per the judgment in G.V. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) AVARAYAMPALAYAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, COIMBATORE 2018 (3) TMI 1617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , but in the present case, no such opportunity of personal hearing has been given to the petitioner and therefore, considering the present facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, one more opportunity to the petitioner herein is to be granted. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity including the personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing impugned orders without personal hearing as per Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a distributor for a company, had his GST registration cancelled by the Department. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for revocation of registration upon learning about a government notification. The respondent issued a show-cause notice, but the petitioner was unable to file a reply in time. The respondent passed orders without granting a personal hearing, leading to the filing of writ petitions seeking relief.

The petitioner argued that the impugned orders violated natural justice by not providing a personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Citing a relevant judgment, the petitioner contended that failure to submit objections to pre-assessment notices should not deny the right to a personal hearing. The respondent, however, maintained that since the petitioner did not request a personal hearing or file a reply within the stipulated time, the show-cause notices were confirmed lawfully.

Upon hearing both parties, the Court acknowledged that while the petitioner did not adhere to the timelines or request a personal hearing, the principles of natural justice necessitated granting such an opportunity before passing adverse orders. In light of this, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and to pass appropriate orders within three months, emphasizing the importance of cooperation from the petitioner.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with the directive for the respondent to reevaluate the matter in compliance with the principles of natural justice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.