2024 (7) TMI 259 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - impugned order passed without fixing any date and without issuing any further notice for another date of hearing - HELD THAT - In the present case notice for filing of reply was issued on 18.8.2022 for the date 18.09.2022. No separate / other date was fixed for hearing. Yet without passing any order on the date fixed the impugned order has been passed on 4.11.2022 without fixing any date and without issuing any further notice for another date of hearing. The present order has remained wholly ex-parte order that may not be sustained - impugned order dated 4.11.2022 passed by the respondent is hereby set-aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order under Section 74 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017; Availability of remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act; Violation of Section 75(4) of the Act.

Challenge to order under Section 74 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017:
The judgment deals with a challenge raised against an order passed by the respondent under Section 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing, which is a fundamental requirement under procedural law. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment where it was held that the revenue authorities must provide a personal hearing to the assessee before passing any assessment or adjudication order. The impugned order in the present case was found to be in violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates granting a hearing when a request is received or an adverse decision is contemplated against the person chargeable with tax or penalty.

Availability of remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the availability of the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the objection was met by pointing out the violation of Section 75(4) of the Act. It was highlighted that the impugned order did not adhere to the principles of natural justice by failing to grant the petitioner a proper opportunity of personal hearing. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing a fair hearing to the noticee before passing any adverse order in an adjudication proceeding. The court held that the impugned order, passed without affording the petitioner a personal hearing, could not be sustained and was in violation of fundamental principles of natural justice.

Violation of Section 75(4) of the Act:
The judgment extensively discussed the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act, which require granting a hearing when a request is made or an adverse decision is contemplated against the person chargeable with tax or penalty. It was noted that the impugned order in this case was passed in a gross violation of fundamental principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing despite appearing before the competent authority on three dates and submitting replies to the show-cause notices. The court emphasized that denying the opportunity of personal hearing to a person facing adjudication proceedings was unacceptable and against the principles of natural justice. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the court's reasoning behind setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for a fresh decision.