2022 (12) TMI 1365 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner - Section 74 of the CGST Act / UPGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The finding of the Assessing Officer regarding issuance of show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01A, under Section 74(5) of the Act, 2017 requiring the petitioner to show cause and avail opportunity of personal hearing on the date, time and place fixed in the notice, has not been denied by the petitioner in the writ petition. A copy of the show cause notice requiring the petitioner to submit his reply and fixing the date, time and place for personal hearing, has been produced before us by the respondent no. 3 along with the aforesaid instructions dated 14.6.2022, in which the date, time and place for personal hearing is clearly mentioned. The fact of issuance of notice in Form GST-DRC-01 dated 14.1.2022 is clearly mentioned at internal page 12 of the impugned assessment order but the petitioner has neither filed copy of the aforesaid show cause notice nor disclosed it in the writ petition nor disputed the finding of fact recorded in the impugned order regarding issuance of said notice and affording of opportunity of personal hearing to him. The petitioner has concealed material facts of the case which also dis-entitles him to any relief in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding breach of principles of natural justice by the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned assessment order without affording opportunity of hearing.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act without providing an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice or hearing was granted. The petitioner relied on Section 75(4) of the Act and a previous court decision to support the claim. However, the standing counsel contended that the impugned order was passed in accordance with the law and after due notice and hearing. The court carefully considered the submissions and examined the record of the case.

The facts of the case revealed that a survey of the petitioner's business premises was conducted, and subsequent notices were issued to the petitioner under various sections of the Act. Despite multiple opportunities for hearings and responses, the petitioner failed to appear or provide any submissions. The respondent no. 3 eventually passed the impugned assessment order after considering the available material on record. The petitioner, aggrieved by this order for the assessment year 2017-18, approached the court through the writ petition.

The court noted that the petitioner did not deny the issuance of show cause notices or the opportunity for a personal hearing as claimed by the Assessing Officer. The court observed that the petitioner concealed material facts of the case, which could disentitle him to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the court emphasized the importance of coming to court with clean hands and the consequences of approaching the court with falsehoods.

Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the breach of natural justice principles by respondent no. 3. The submissions of the petitioner were rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed with a cost imposed on the petitioner. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to appeal against the impugned order on merit in accordance with the law.