9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 537 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of remedy of appeal under Section 107 of of the UPGST Act, 2017 - violation of Section 75(4) of UPGST Act - denial of opportunity of personal hearing - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the present case as well the notice for filing of reply was issued on 21.12.2023 for the date 22.01.2024. No separate/other date was fixed for hearing. Yet, without passing any order on the date fixed, the impugned order has been passed on 29.04.2024 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 in view of the earlier order passed in MAHAVEER TRADING COMPANY VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAX AND ANOTHER 2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . The matter is remitted to the respondent no.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Sector - 1, State Tax, Gautam Budh Nagar to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues: Challenge to order under Section 74 of UP GST Act, availability of appeal under Section 107, violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, denial of opportunity of personal hearing, gross violation of natural justice, setting aside the impugned order, remittance for a fresh order with due opportunity of hearing.
In this case, the petitioner challenged an order dated 29.04.2024 under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of the appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner argued against this objection citing a violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates granting an opportunity of hearing. The court referred to a previous judgment where it was emphasized that the opportunity of personal hearing is a fundamental requirement before passing any assessment or adjudication order. The impugned order in this case revealed that the petitioner had submitted replies on three occasions but was not granted any further opportunity of personal hearing. The court highlighted that the adjudicating authority failed to issue any notice for personal hearing or grant such an opportunity, which was a violation of natural justice principles. Furthermore, the court noted that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax had issued an Office Memo addressing the issue of inadequate personal hearing procedures in similar cases. The court emphasized the importance of providing a personal hearing before passing any adverse order in adjudication proceedings. It was highlighted that denying the opportunity of personal hearing would be against the principles of natural justice. The court found the impugned order to be in gross violation of natural justice principles and set it aside. The court emphasized that the self-imposed bar of alternative remedy could not be applied in such cases as it would not serve the interests of justice. The court directed the matter to be remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition in line with the earlier judgment and set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2024. The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing in adjudication proceedings and directed the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order with due consideration to natural justice principles.
|
