2024 (1) TMI 923 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - no personal hearing was provided and that the replies of the petitioner were not taken into consideration - HELD THAT - The revised notice was issued on 01.09.2023 pursuant to the petitioner's reply to the earlier notice. By reply dated 15.09.2023, the petitioner requested for a personal hearing. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that the reference therein is to personal hearing opportunities provided in April and May 2023. These opportunities were prior to the issuance of the revised notice on 01.09.2023. The impugned order also does not consider the petitioner's replies. Solely on these grounds, the impugned order calls for interference. The matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide both a personal hearing and a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before issuing a reasoned order. This exercise shall be concluded within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of non-compliance with principles of natural justice in a case related to the cancellation of GST registration for a business trading in wastes and scraps of ferrous products.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1 - Non-compliance with principles of natural justice:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 05.10.2023 on the grounds of non-compliance with principles of natural justice. The petitioner, engaged in trading of wastes and scraps of ferrous products, claimed that it was unaware of the notices issued on 28.03.2023 and subsequent reminders in April and May 2023. The petitioner responded to the notices on 26.06.2023 and 26.07.2023, requesting a personal hearing. However, the impugned order issued on 05.10.2023 did not consider the petitioner's replies or provide a personal hearing, leading to the court's decision to quash the order and remand the matter for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to afford a personal hearing and a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before issuing a reasoned order within three months.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Madras disposed of the case, directing the reconsideration of the matter in light of the principles of natural justice, without imposing any costs. The related miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.