2024 (1) TMI 329 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - prior to the filing of reply, the impugned order was passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - calling for the details of the imported goods from the petitioner - HELD THAT - In the present case, it appears that the petitioner is in the business of supplying bone meal and they had not at all imported any materials at any point of time. However, the notice was issued by the 1st respondent as if the petitioner had imported timber and the said information is said to have been obtained by the 1st respondent from the Customs Department. Further, according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner had received the show cause notice and they had not filed any reply for the said notice. This Court is of the view that even assuming that the petitioner had received the notices and not filed any reply, the 1st respondent is supposed to have provided the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before the passing of impugned order, which is mandated in terms of Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the same has not been done in the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that any order has to be passed only after providing an opportunity of personal hearing. Further, in the present case, the petitioner had passed the impugned order under the misconception that the petitioner had imported timber, which is totally contrary to the business of the petitioner. Hence, for the interest of justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.10.2021 is set aside. The attachment notice dated 02.08.2022, which was issued based on the said impugned order, shall stand lifted. While setting aside the said order, this Court remits the matter back to the 1st respondent - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the respondent on 13.10.2021, alleging violation of principles of natural justice and incorrect assumption of imported goods.

Analysis:

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner, engaged in supplying bone meal, asserts they did not import any goods. The respondent issued a notice demanding details of imported goods, mistakenly assuming the petitioner imported timber. The impugned order was passed without granting a personal hearing to the petitioner, contrary to Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Misconception of Imported Goods:
Despite the petitioner's clarification that bone meal supply is VAT duty exempt, the respondent proceeded under the false belief of timber importation. The impugned order, lacking a personal hearing, was based on incorrect information obtained from the Customs Department.

Court Decision:
The Court finds the impugned order to be in violation of principles of natural justice and orders its set aside. The attachment notice issued based on the order is lifted. The matter is remitted back to the respondent, directing them to allow the petitioner to file a reply and conduct a personal hearing within three months. The writ petition is disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.