9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1233 - HC - GSTPrinciples of natural justice - non-speaking order - objections filed by the petitioner have not been taken note of by the respondent - opportunity of personal hearing not provided - HELD THAT - A reading of the impugned orders does not imply the reasoning of the authority concerned. That apart, though adverse orders were being passed against the petitioner, no opportunity of personal hearing has been afforded to him, which is contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. Therefore, on this limited ground, without addressing the merits of the case, this Court allows all these Writ Petitions, sets aside the impugned orders and remits the matter back to the respondent. The petitioner is directed to file their better reply with all documents and not only the forms. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
Challenge to impugned orders directing payment of tax and penalty; Non-consideration of objections by respondent leading to nonspeaking orders. Issue 1: Non-consideration of objections The petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that the objections filed were not taken into account by the respondent, resulting in nonspeaking orders being passed. The petitioner, in response to previous orders, had clearly outlined objections to identified defects and submitted relevant documents. It was contended that the respondent failed to consider these objections and passed orders without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner invoked Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, seeking to quash the impugned orders. Decision: The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, observed that the impugned orders lacked reasoning and failed to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing as required by Section 75(4) of the Act. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the case, the Court allowed all the Writ Petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matter back to the respondent. The petitioner was instructed to submit a comprehensive reply with all necessary documents, not limited to forms. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent in person on a specified date. The respondent was mandated to reconsider the petitioner's case and issue orders within a month from the specified date. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of the judgment.
|
