2023 (8) TMI 1355 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - refund claim denied - immediately after the SCN was issued the petitioner paid the entire penalty - amount impugned order passed without providing any opportunity to the petitioner - HELD THAT - For the alleged violation of Central Goods and Services Tax, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice on 18.11.2022 directing the petitioner to appear before the Authority on 19.11.2022, however, without providing any opportunity to the petitioner the respondent has passed the impugned order on 18.11.2022 itself, which is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 18.11.2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

Summary:

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the order issued by the respondent u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the respondent passed the impugned order on 18.11.2022 without giving any opportunity to be heard, despite issuing a show cause notice on the same day directing the petitioner to appear before the Authority on 19.11.2022. The petitioner contended that this act was a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

Remand for Fresh Consideration:
The High Court, after considering the submissions, set aside the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed the respondent to reconsider the issue, providing an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case. The respondent was instructed to pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. It was specified that the respondent was not required to refund the amount paid by the petitioner, but to conduct a fresh review with due process.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed on the terms mentioned above, with no costs imposed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, bringing the matter to a resolution in favor of the petitioner seeking justice and adherence to the principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.