9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 421 - HC - GSTDemand of GST with interest and penalty - Violation of principles of Natural Justice - opportunity of personal hearing not given to petitioner - Section 75(4) of the I.G.S.T./A.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - From a reading of the provision of Section 75(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, it is very much evident that an opportunity of hearing shall be given when a request is made in writing by the person who is charged with tax or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated. In the instant case, a notice for personal hearing, dated 13.10.2020, was issued to the petitioner. But on that day, the Assistant Commissioner directed the petitioner herein to produce documents for verification but however, did not give any date for hearing. Without hearing the petitioner, an adverse order came to be passed, which is impugned in this case. Therefore, it can be said that there is violation of Section 75(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. It may not be necessary for us to go into the other aspects since the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for consideration of the same after giving notice of personal hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing an order under the IGST Act, 2017 without providing an opportunity of personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the Act.
Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Writ Petition challenged an order passed by the First Respondent under the IGST Act, 2017, alleging it to be violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law. The petitioner sought relief through a Writ, Order, or Direction, particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS. The main contention was the lack of opportunity for personal hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Acts, 2017. 2. Contentions of the Parties: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a discrepancy between the show cause notice and the order passed by the Assessing Officer. It was contended that the matter should be remanded for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a hearing. On the other hand, the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax opposed this, arguing that Section 75(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act only requires an opportunity of hearing upon a written request. 3. Interpretation of Section 75(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act: The Court delved into the interpretation of Section 75(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, which mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted upon a written request from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or when an adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The provision clearly outlines the circumstances under which a hearing must be provided. 4. Violation and Setting Aside of the Order: The Court found that in the present case, although a notice for personal hearing was issued, the petitioner was not given an actual opportunity for a hearing before the adverse order was passed. This lack of proper hearing amounted to a violation of Section 75(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back for reconsideration after providing the petitioner with a notice of personal hearing. 5. Conclusion: The judgment concluded by granting the relief sought by the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity for a hearing as required by law. The Court directed that there shall be no order as to costs and closed any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the Writ Petition.
|
