9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1262 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing is contrary to the mandate of section 75(4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act - HELD THAT - There are no hesitation in holding that the order dated 14.03.2022 is clearly in violation of the Section 75(4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act and is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order dated 14.03.2022 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.2 to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with law - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to order quantifying demand u/s 74 of U.P.G.S.T. Act and dismissal of appeal as beyond limitation. Issue 1: Challenge to order quantifying demand u/s 74 of U.P.G.S.T. Act: The petitioner challenged the order dated 14.03.2022 quantifying demand u/s 74 of U.P.G.S.T. Act, contending that the show cause notice was based on a SIB survey report, alleging unaccounted goods. The petitioner argued that the notice lacked details for a fair opportunity to respond, as it did not specify a date, time, or venue for personal hearing. Despite filing a reply denying the allegations and requesting a personal hearing, the order was passed solely on the SIB report without granting an opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed due to a filing delay. The petitioner argued that the order violated section 75(4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act and principles of natural justice. The Standing Counsel confirmed that no personal hearing was granted, leading the court to quash the order dated 14.03.2022, citing violations of the Act and natural justice principles. Issue 2: Dismissal of appeal as beyond limitation: The petitioner's appeal against the order dated 14.03.2022 was dismissed as beyond limitation. The petitioner contended that the order quantifying demand and the appeal dismissal were separate, as the appeal was not heard on merits. The court, considering previous judgments, allowed the writ petition, quashed the 14.03.2022 order, and remanded the matter for issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with the law, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures.
|
