9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 578 - HC - GSTApplication for deletion of the name of the second respondent appearing in the CTS records - HELD THAT - Upon receipt of the communication from Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforecement-1) Belagavi the ADLR, City Survey Belagavi is directed to delete the name of the second respondent in the CTS records of CTS No.1495 - aplication allowed. Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not heard as contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the GST Act - HELD THAT - From a plain reading of Section 75 (4), it is noticeably clear that even in a case where a person is chargeable with tax or penalty and has not requested a personal hearing, the Department is bound to give a personal hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated against such a person. In the present case, such an exercise has not been made by the Department concerned. In the circumstances, the second respondent was bound to give a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing an order on 29.06.2019. This would be irrespective of the fact as to whether the petitioner has asked for such a personal hearing or not. The order has been passed without giving any personal hearing to the petitioner and the same violates principles of natural justice and ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75 (4) of the CGST Act. The orders at Annexures-C and F are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Application for deletion of name of second respondent in CTS records. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing orders under GST Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, filed an application for the deletion of the second respondent's name from the CTS records. The petitioner was registered under the GST Act and had its office in Belagavi. The second respondent had inspected the premises and issued an order under Sections 74 and 122(2)(b) of the CGST and KGST Act, leading to an appeal by the petitioner. The first respondent dismissed the appeal, resulting in the entry of the second respondent's name in the CTS records. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order based on various grounds. 2. The Court considered the contention that the order dated 29.06.2019 was against the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court noted that the Department must provide a personal hearing even if not requested when an adverse decision is contemplated. As the petitioner was not given a hearing before the order was passed, it was held to be in violation of natural justice and the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders at Annexures-C and F. 3. The Court issued a Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders dated 29.06.2019 and 04.08.2020. Additionally, it directed the second respondent to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a new order within four weeks, considering all contentions and following the law. As a result, the Writ Petition was allowed, providing relief to the petitioner based on the violation of principles of natural justice in the original orders.
|
