9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 362 - HC - GSTCorrectness of decision making process adopted by the respondents - violation of principles of natural justice and statutory mandate ingrained in Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the Goods and Services Tax (Act) - Requirement to provide opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT - A plain reading of sub-section 4 of Section 75 of the Act makes it crystal clear that opportunity of hearing must be granted in two situations viz (a) where a request in specific is received in writing from the person chargeable; (b) where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person - This is trite that when language of statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of its consequences. In the instant case whether or not the petitioners have specifically asked for personal hearing, fact remains that the adverse decision was contemplated against the petitioners. In that event, it was obligatory and mandatory on the part of respondents to provide the petitioners opportunity of personal hearing. Admittedly, no opportunity of personal hearing has been provided in both the matters. Resultantly, the decision making process adopted by the respondents is vitiated and runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and statutory requirement of sub-section 4 of Section 75 of GST Act. As a result, the impugned proceedings after the stage of reply of show cause notices, in both the cases are set-aside. The respondents shall provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate under Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The key issue is whether the decision-making process adopted by the respondents, involving show cause notices and imposition of tax, interest, and penalty, adhered to the requirements of providing an opportunity of hearing as mandated by the law. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Opportunity of Hearing under Section 75(4) of GST Act The petitioners challenged the decision-making process, alleging a violation of natural justice and statutory mandate. The court analyzed Section 75(4) of the GST Act, emphasizing that an opportunity of hearing must be granted when a request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or when an adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The court highlighted the importance of the word 'or' in the statute, indicating that even in cases where no specific request for a personal hearing is made, if an adverse decision is contemplated, the opportunity of hearing should be provided. The court referred to relevant judgments to support this interpretation. Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Opportunity of Hearing' The State contended that the provision does not require a 'personal hearing' but only an 'opportunity of hearing'. However, the petitioners argued that the prescribed form DRC-01 clearly distinguishes between filing a reply and requesting a personal hearing, indicating that the law recognizes the separate stages. The court agreed with the petitioners, stating that the opportunity of hearing encompasses the opportunity for a personal hearing as well. Decision and Conclusion The court found that the decision-making process by the respondents lacked providing the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, which violated the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. As a result, the proceedings after the stage of replying to show cause notices were set aside. The court directed the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing, including a personal hearing, to the petitioners in both cases. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the case, disposing of both writ petitions accordingly.
|
