9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 969 - HC - GSTDetermination of tax u/s 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act - petitioner submits that the order is passed merely on the representation of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of oral hearing to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioner is entitled for an opportunity of hearing before determination of any tax even under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act. The impugned order dated 29.12.2023, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved: Challenge to tax determination u/s 73(9) of CGST/SGST Act without opportunity of oral hearing. Interpretation of mandatory personal hearing u/s 75(4) of CGST/UPGST Act 2017 and breach of natural justice principles.
The petitioner challenged an order determining tax u/s 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, claiming it was passed without granting an oral hearing. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment to argue for the mandatory nature of personal hearing u/s 75(4) of the CGST/UPGST Act 2017. The Court considered various exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, emphasizing instances where orders were passed in violation of natural justice principles or lacked jurisdiction. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the importance of personal hearing in tax determinations. Ultimately, the impugned order was quashed, granting liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel objected to the order being passed u/s 75(4) of the CGST/UPGST Act, emphasizing the necessity of personal hearing in tax determinations. The Court noted that tax was determined against the petitioner u/s 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, reiterating the requirement for a personal hearing before any tax determination, even under this section. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh order with the petitioner being granted a personal hearing. In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 was set aside, with directions for a fresh order to be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.
|
