2022 (11) TMI 834 - HC - GST

GST in respect of development rights - Constitutional Validity of N/N. 4/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 - vires to Section 148 of the CGST Act/ APGST Act - violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - If tax payer has requested to grant personal hearing and the same was considered and granted. However, except this, in the impugned order, it is not specifically mentioned as to what date was fixed for personal hearing after filing reply by the petitioner and what happened on the date i.e., whether the petitioner and his counsel were present or not. Be that as it may, in the additional affidavit, at paragraph 4, it was mentioned that no opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing after he filed reply wherein he prayed for personal hearing. The reply itself is a detailed one which runs into several pages containing several factual details and some legal aspects. Therefore, the 1st respondent, ought to have afforded personal hearing to the petitioner so as to effectively adjudicate all the issues involved in the process of assessment. Since that was not done, the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 is liable to set aside. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to Notification No.4/2018-Central Tax (Rate) | Legality of demands under CGST/ APGST Act | Violation of principles of natural justice

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Notification No.4/2018-Central Tax (Rate): The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring Notification No.4/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 as ultra vires to Section 148 of the CGST Act/ APGST Act. The impugned order confirmed demands of CGST, APGST, IGST, Penalty, and Interest, which the petitioner argued were illegal, arbitrary, and violated natural justice principles.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner contended that despite requesting a personal hearing due to the complexity of the case, no such opportunity was granted before the impugned order was passed on 25.07.2022. The petitioner argued that this deprived them of the principles of natural justice and requested the order to be set aside for a fair hearing.

3. Analysis of Court's Decision: The Court noted discrepancies in the handling of the personal hearing request by the petitioner. While some references indicated a personal hearing was granted, the additional affidavit clarified that no such opportunity was actually provided. The Court held that the petitioner was not afforded a proper personal hearing as requested, which was essential for adjudicating the complex issues involved in the assessment process.

4. Court's Ruling and Remand: In light of the lack of a fair opportunity for a personal hearing, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent. The Court directed the respondent to provide a notice to the petitioner, fix a date for a personal hearing, allow the petitioner to present arguments, consider submissions, and pass an appropriate order expeditiously in accordance with the law and rules.

5. Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the case were closed. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair hearing for parties involved in legal proceedings to safeguard their rights and interests.