2025 (3) TMI 484 - HC - GST

Challenge to order passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The factual matrix is such that the matter is squarely covered by a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in MAHAVEER TRADING COMPANY VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAX AND ANOTHER 2024 (3) TMI 334 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it was held that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been passed in gross violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. The self imposed bar of alternative remedy cannot be applied in such facts. If applied it would be of no real use. In fact it would be counter productive to the interest of justice. Upon a perusal of record it appears that the factual matrix is very similar to one in Mahaveer Trading Company s case. There are no reason to take a different stand. The impugned order dated 20.04.2024 is quashed and set-aside with a direction given to the officer concerned to grant the petitioner another opportunity of filing a fresh reply and thereafter fix a date of hearing and pass a reasoned order - Appeal allowed.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitioner challenged an order passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The court noted that the matter was similar to a previous judgment of Mahaveer Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax and another. In that case, it was emphasized that before passing an adverse order in an adjudication proceeding, a personal hearing must be offered to the noticee to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld. The court held that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles and quashed it, directing the officer to grant the petitioner another opportunity to file a fresh reply, schedule a hearing, and pass a reasoned order within two months.The court's decision was based on the fundamental principle of providing a fair opportunity for a personal hearing before passing an adverse order in an adjudication proceeding. The court emphasized that denying a person facing adjudication proceedings the opportunity of a personal hearing goes against the principles of natural justice. The court also clarified that the appeal authority does not have the authority to remand the proceedings.In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad quashed the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 and directed the officer concerned to provide the petitioner with another opportunity to file a fresh reply, schedule a hearing, and pass a reasoned order within two months. The court set a date for the hearing and emphasized that no adjournment would be granted to the parties on that date under any circumstances.