2024 (11) TMI 338 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - without providing any further opportunity and in violation of the directions issued by this Court in the previous writ petition, the order impugned was passed - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order impugned and the record of personal hearing indicates that personal hearing was held on 19.02.2024, 20.03.2024, 23.04.2024 and 22.05.2024, the order was passed by this Court on 30.05.2024, whereafter hearing was held on 07.06.2024 and 12.07.2024. On 12.07.2024, a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner to keep the show cause notice in abeyance, as the matter was under investigation on an FIR lodged by the petitioner qua the bank officials. Qua the aspect raised by the petitioner also apparently, no specific finding has been recorded and reliance has been placed by indicating that the Hon'ble Court has acknowledged the fraud in GST whereas a reading of the order passed by this Court, it cannot be said that the Court had indicated anything which can foreclose the argument of the petitioner, the Court had only noticed the allegations regarding fraud as alleged by the petitioner. In view of the overall fact situation of the matter, it is apparent that after supply of the documents, the petitioner was not afforded any further opportunity of hearing, the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 30.05.2024, have not been followed and the finding which has been recorded pertaining to the fraud, is ipse dixit . The order dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure-14) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Joint Commissioner (Adjudication), Central GST Commissionerate, Ghaziabad, who would provide an opportunity of hearing, follow the directions given by this Court in its order dated 30.05.2024 and deal with the issue of fraud, as alleged by the petitioner appropriately and pass a fresh order. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order without providing further opportunity to the petitioner after supplying documents.
2. Failure to follow the directions of the Court in a previous writ petition regarding confrontation with documents and witnesses.
3. Allegations of fraud against the petitioner and the need for proper investigation.
4. Preliminary objection raised regarding the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order creating a demand under the CGST Act, 2017 and related statutes. The petitioner contended that despite being supplied documents, no further opportunity was provided before passing the impugned order, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner emphasized the need for a fair hearing post-document supply to address the allegations adequately.

2. The Court noted that in a previous writ petition, directions were issued for the petitioner to be confronted with all relevant documents and oral statements, with the right to cross-examine witnesses. However, the authority failed to fix a further hearing date after document supply and passed the impugned order within 15 days, disregarding the Court's directives. This failure to follow the Court's directions was a crucial aspect leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

3. The petitioner raised concerns about the lack of investigation by the respondents into the alleged fraud and pointed out that the documents supplied indicated potential misuse of the petitioner's bank account by someone else. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's denial of involvement in the fraudulent transactions but found that the order lacked a specific determination regarding the petitioner's liability. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing the fraud allegations appropriately through a thorough investigation.

4. The respondents argued for the dismissal of the writ petition based on the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Court held that since the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity post-document supply, the plea of alternative remedy did not bar the petitioner from pursuing the writ petition. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing in compliance with the Court's previous directions.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues raised in the judgment, including the violation of natural justice, failure to follow Court directives, the need for investigation into fraud allegations, and the consideration of alternative remedies.