9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 919 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - no personal hearing was granted in pursuance of the provision of section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act - HELD THAT - The petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice and he did not even take heed of the fresh date fixed in the matter. He did not pray for any extension of time to submit his reply to the show cause notice therefore, he cannot now on the basis of oral assertion argue that the date fixed by the proper officer/assessing authority of 17.11.2023 was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. This court having gone through the instructions as also the Judgment rendered in Eveready Industries India Ltd 2024 (6) TMI 162 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , is of the opinion that even if no date, time or place of hearing is indicated in the notice issued under Section 73, it was the duty of the assessee to file his reply to the show cause notice which was admittedly received by him. He chose to ignore the show cause notice. In such cases, the plea regarding denial of opportunity of hearing and violation of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced. This writ petition is dismissed in view of statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the Central GST Act.
Issues:
Challenge to ex-parte demand order and show cause notice under State Goods & Service Tax Act - Opportunity of personal hearing - Compliance with principles of natural justice - Statutory remedy under Section 107 of Central GST Act. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an ex-parte demand order and show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the State Goods & Service Tax Act. The petitioner argued that no personal hearing was granted as required by section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, citing a previous case where a similar demand order was quashed for lack of personal hearing. The petitioner also relied on orders by coordinate benches in other cases to support their argument. The State-respondent, through learned counsel, provided details of the notices issued to the petitioner and the subsequent actions taken by the department. It was mentioned that the petitioner did not submit any explanation or approach the proper officer in person, leading to the issuance of the order under section 73(9) on 16.12.2023. The State-respondent contended that the petitioner had the opportunity to reply to the show cause notice but failed to do so. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and referred to a previous judgment emphasizing the necessity of providing the opportunity for a personal hearing before passing an adverse order. The court noted that the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice or acknowledge the fresh date fixed for the matter, indicating a lack of diligence on the petitioner's part. The court held that even if the notice did not specify a date, time, or place for the hearing, it was the petitioner's responsibility to respond to the show cause notice received. Ignoring the notice and failing to request an extension of time precluded the petitioner from claiming a denial of opportunity of hearing or violation of natural justice principles. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, citing the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central GST Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with procedural requirements and actively participating in the legal process to safeguard one's rights under the law.
|
