9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 342 - HC - GSTTime limitation - appeal dismissed as being beyond limitation - HELD THAT - Section 75(4) of the GST Act mandates the granting of an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated against a person. This provision was also interpreted by this Court in the case of PARTY TIME HOSPITALITY PROP. SMT. PUNITA GUPTA LKO. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. TAX AND REGISTRATION LKO AND 2 OTHERS 2023 (9) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and the Court was of the view that compliance of Section 75(4) of GST Act is mandatory; while doing so, this Court had also considered the earlier judgments of this Court. Considering the fact that the original order is contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also violative of principles of natural justice, the order dated 15.03.2022 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. Matter is remanded to respondent no.3 to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing and after permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice, in accordance with law - Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Challenge to order dismissing appeal under Section 107 of GST Act as beyond limitation. 2. Challenge to order creating demand under Section 74 of GST Act without providing opportunity of hearing. Issue 1: Challenge to order dismissing appeal under Section 107 of GST Act as beyond limitation: The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.03.2023 dismissing the appeal under Section 107 of GST Act as beyond limitation. The petitioner contended that the appeal was dismissed due to being filed beyond the prescribed period. Issue 2: Challenge to order creating demand under Section 74 of GST Act without providing opportunity of hearing: The petitioner also challenged the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by respondent no.3 creating a demand under Section 74 of GST Act without providing an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner claimed to be a bonafide firm that rectified a mistake in availing ITC but was still served with a notice for a proposed liability. The petitioner sought adjournment to file a reply and for a personal hearing, but the order was passed without granting these opportunities. The Court noted that the petitioner had challenged both the orders, emphasizing the original order confirming the demand under Section 74 of GST Act without a proper opportunity of hearing. It was observed that the notices issued did not specify the date, time, or venue for a personal hearing, which was a violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act mandating an opportunity of hearing before an adverse decision. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court reiterated that compliance with Section 75(4) of the GST Act is mandatory and a violation of this provision amounts to a breach of natural justice principles. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 15.03.2022 for being contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) of GST Act and remanded the matter to respondent no.3 for fresh orders after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing and allowing the filing of a reply to the show-cause notice. As a result of quashing the original order, the subsequent order dated 29.03.2023 was also quashed. The petition was allowed in the above terms, ensuring that the petitioner receives a fair hearing and due process in accordance with the law.
|
