9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 606 - HC - GSTPrinciples of Natural Justice - whether specific opportunity of personal hearing by mentioning the date was given? - Section 75(4) of Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that individual and separate personal hearing notice was not issued to the petitioner. On the ground of violation of statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the impugned orders have to be necessarily quashed. The matters are remitted to the file of the respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Violation of statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 leading to quashing of impugned orders and remittance of matters for fresh orders.
Analysis: The judgment delivered by Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court pertains to three writ petitions with a common issue, despite different assessment years. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised multiple grounds in the affidavit, but the court found that the crux of the matter could be addressed succinctly. The petitioner's counsel highlighted Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, emphasizing the requirement for granting an opportunity of hearing in specific circumstances. The court probed the respondent's counsel on whether a specific opportunity for personal hearing, with a mentioned date, was provided. It was established that no individual and separate personal hearing notice was issued to the petitioner. Based on the absence of a specific opportunity for personal hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Act, the court concluded that the impugned orders must be quashed. Consequently, the matters were remitted back to the respondent for fresh orders in compliance with the law. Importantly, the court clarified that its decision did not delve into the merits of the case. In granting liberty to the respondent to reissue orders in accordance with the statutory requirements, the court allowed the writ petitions, without imposing any costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were consequently closed, bringing the legal proceedings to a conclusion.
|
