2024 (5) TMI 317 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - notice under Section 46 of the Act has not been given to the petitioner - primary contention of petitioner is that provisions of Section 46 of the Act was not complied with and notice was not given to the petitioner who was a registered person - HELD THAT - Since there is non-obstante clause under Section 62 of the Act, no proceedings could have taken place under Section 74 of the Act. It is not required to accept the said arguments for the very reason that this is not a case where the registered person failed to furnish the return rather, the petitioner has filed the NIL return. Therefore, there was no requirement to give notice to the petitioner under Section 46 of the Act. The present is a case where search and seizure had taken placed under Chapter XIV of the Act and in pursuance of search and seizure, summons were given under Section 70 of the Act to the petitioner to give evidence. Consequently, thereupon the evidence of petitioner was recorded and after recording of evidence, petitioner was afforded three opportunities of personal hearing and thereafter, the present assessment order has been passed - there are no violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner himself has admitted his GST liability in evidence given by him and the person who has himself given evidence, cannot be permitted to be cross-examined by his own counsel. Since present is a case where there is no violation of principles of natural justice, it is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include compliance with Section 46 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the necessity of notice to the petitioner, principles of natural justice, the cancellation of petitioner's registration, and the right to cross-examination.

Compliance with Section 46 of the Act:
The petitioner argued that the provisions of Section 46 of the Act were not followed as no notice was given to the registered person. They contended that Section 62 of the Act, which deals with non-filers of returns, could not be invoked without complying with Section 46. However, the court held that since the petitioner had submitted a NIL return, there was no requirement to give notice under Section 46. The court noted that the proceedings were initiated under Chapter XIV of the Act after search and seizure, and the petitioner was given opportunities for personal hearing, during which he admitted his GST liability. Therefore, the court dismissed the argument of non-compliance with Section 46.

Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner claimed that principles of natural justice were violated as they were not given a personal hearing and the registration was canceled without proper procedure. However, the court found that the petitioner had admitted his tax liability during the proceedings and was given multiple opportunities for personal hearing. The court held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, especially since the petitioner admitted his liability, and dismissed the petition on this ground.

Cancellation of Petitioner's Registration:
The petitioner contended that their registration was canceled by the authorities, and the subsequent proceedings under Sections 67 and 70 of the Act did not comply with Sections 46 and 62. The court, however, found that the cancellation of registration did not affect the validity of the proceedings initiated after search and seizure under Chapter XIV of the Act. The court emphasized that the petitioner had opportunities for personal hearing and admitted their tax liability, leading to the dismissal of this argument.

Right to Cross-Examination:
The petitioner argued that they should have the right to cross-examine themselves, especially after their statement was recorded under Chapter XIV of the Act. The court rejected this argument, stating that the petitioner, having admitted their GST liability during the proceedings, could not be permitted to be cross-examined by their own counsel. The court emphasized that since there was no violation of principles of natural justice, the petition was dismissed.

Appellate Remedy:
The court highlighted that the petitioner had an alternate remedy to challenge the assessment order by way of appeal. The respondent contended that the petitioner had admitted their tax liability and had the opportunity to raise objections before the appellate authority. The court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority by filing an appeal and presenting all objections before it.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner admitted their GST liability during the proceedings. The court emphasized that the petitioner had opportunities for personal hearing and the right to appeal the assessment order. The court also directed the appropriate authority to consider sympathetically the time spent during the proceedings if an appeal is filed.

← Previous Next →