9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 936 - HC - GSTDetermination of tax - Procedure prescribed u/s 75(4) of CGST not followed - Validity of assessment order - violation of principles of natural justice - not providing opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order impugned in the present Writ Petition discloses in unequivocal terms that the petitioner made a request to the respondents to afford an opportunity of personal hearing. The impugned order also states that vide reference 1st cited in the impugned order, notice was issued affording an opportunity of personal hearing and the petitioner failed to avail the same. However, the fact remains that the 1st reference in the impugned order is only an authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner, but not the notice said to have been issued to the petitioner, affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The above aspects drives this Court towards irresistible conclusion that the 1st respondent herein passed the impugned order not only in violation of mandatory provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Act, 2017, but also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice and mandatory requirements of law in passing the impugned order
In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, who duly filed an explanation in response. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the mandatory requirements of law under sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and in violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the Assistant Government Pleader argued that since the petitioner had submitted an explanation in response to the show-cause notice, there was no violation of natural justice or legal requirements. Analysis and Decision: The Court examined Section 75 of the Act, 2017, which mandates granting an opportunity of hearing where a request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The impugned order revealed that the petitioner had requested a personal hearing, and a reference was made to a notice allegedly providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. However, it was found that the reference in the order was merely an authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner, not the actual notice for a personal hearing. This discrepancy led the Court to conclude that the impugned order was passed in violation of both the mandatory provisions of the law and the principles of natural justice. Outcome: As a result, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2022. The authorities were directed to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a proper hearing. No costs were awarded in this matter, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered to be closed.
|
