2023 (8) TMI 106 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - seeking opportunity of hearing before passing the order under Section 73 of the Odisha Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - It appears that when the petitioner was called upon to give his reply, he sought for time vide his application dated 29.04.2023 under Annexure-3 seeking for a period of 30 days, so that he will produce relevant document and submit his reply against GST DRC-01 for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 vide Reference No. ZD210323019782S dated 31.03.2023. In the said request for grant of time, at Sl. No. 7, in the option for personal hearing , though the petitioner put tick mark in the No column, but that is meant for that time petition itself. Therefore, once the petitioner is asking for time, there is no need for mentioning of any personal hearing in the petition under Annexure-3. However, the same should have been acted upon by the authority by giving opportunity of hearing as per the statute. The statute requires that at least three opportunities should be given to the assessee. The same has not been complied with. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties have shown haste in passing the order dated 24.05.2023 under Annexure-4, though the adjudicating authority had to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in conformity with the provisions of law. In absence of compliance of such provision, the order so passed on 24.05.2023 under Annexure-4 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to pass appropriate order under Section 73 of the Act by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the quashing of an order passed by the opposite party under Section 73 of the Odisha Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and the direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing such an order.

Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the opposite party and to direct the opposite parties to give an opportunity of hearing before passing the order under Section 73 of the Act. The petitioner contended that despite requesting time for submission of a reply against the notice, the impugned order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that the statute requires three opportunities to be given to the assessee, which was not complied with in this case.

The Standing Counsel for Revenue argued that the petitioner, by ticking 'No' for personal hearing in the reply form, indicated a lack of interest in a personal hearing. However, the Court noted that the petitioner's request for time should have been acted upon by granting an opportunity of hearing as per the statute, which was not done. The Court emphasized that the statute requires at least three opportunities to be given to the assessee, a requirement that was not met in this case.

Referring to a previous case, the Court observed that passing orders without granting requested opportunities of hearing violates statutory requirements. The Court held that the opposite parties showed haste in passing the order without affording the petitioner the necessary opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the order dated 24.05.2023 was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate order under Section 73 by providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.