2024 (6) TMI 284 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - It is contended that the respondents, without offering personal hearing to the petitioner, despite recording the factum of personal hearing being offered in the aforesaid order - HELD THAT - In this case, it may be noticed that since, the proper officer was contemplating passing of an adverse decision against the petitioner, as would be apparent from the show cause notice, the authorized officer in my view, under Section 75 (4) of the said Act was obliged to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. From the documents on record it does not appear that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The instructions received by Mr. Chakraborty as submitted before this Court, with regard to the petitioner being directed to appear before the proper officer on 5th February 2024 is also contrary to the recording made in the order dated 7th February 2024. There has been non-compliance of Section 75 (4) of the said Act, insofar as affording opportunity of hearing is concerned. As such the aforesaid order dated 7th February 2024 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed. Petition disposed off.

Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 73 of WBGST Act, 2017 on grounds of natural justice violation.

Summary:
1. The writ petition challenged an order passed u/s 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017, alleging violation of natural justice principles.
2. Petitioner contended that despite recording the offer of personal hearing, the respondents disposed of the proceeding without granting the petitioner a personal hearing.
3. Show cause notice issued in November 2023 alleged tax and interest short payment for a specific period. Petitioner requested additional time to respond, but an ex-parte order was passed on February 7, 2024, as petitioner did not reply to discrepancies or appear before the officer.
4. Petitioner's advocate presented a screenshot showing no opportunity of hearing was offered, contrary to the order's recording.
5. State's advocate stated that petitioner was directed to appear on a different date, but could not explain the discrepancy in communication through the common portal.
6. After hearing both advocates and reviewing the evidence, the court considered the matter.
7. The court found that the petitioner was not afforded a hearing despite the possibility of an adverse decision, as required by Section 75(4) of the Act.
8. Due to non-compliance with the Act regarding the opportunity of hearing, the order dated February 7, 2024, was set aside and quashed.
9. The proper officer was directed to complete the proceeding under Section 73 by granting a hearing to the petitioner within six weeks.
10. The court clarified that it did not assess the merits of the show cause notice.
11. The writ petition was disposed of with the provided observations and directions.
12. All parties were instructed to act based on the server copy of the order downloaded from the Court's official website.

← Previous Next →