9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 231 - HC - GSTCorrectness of the N/N. 09/2023 dated 31.03.2023 - Validity of SCN and summary SCN - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - From the reading of Section 75 (4) of the CGST Act it is seen that while the assessee may be granted an opportunity where a request is made in writing the provision also stipulates that such opportunity is to be extended where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. It must be noticed that in case of contingencies as contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the CGST Act wherein adverse decision is contemplated prior to concluding the proceedings an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded. There is no evidence of such opportunity having been afforded. In the light of contentions raised and noticed regarding violation of Section 75 (4) of the CGST Act the orders at Annexures-C and C1 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the stage of furnishing of reply to the show cause notice. All contentions are kept open. Conclusion - The challenge to the validity of Notification No. 09/2023 is not pursued by the appellant and thus the Court did not make a determination on this issue. The procedural requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act is violated leading to the setting aside of the adverse orders and remittance for further proceedings. Petition allowed by wayof remand.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment are: 1. Whether the Notification No. 09/2023 dated 31.03.2023, which extended the time to complete assessment proceedings, was valid. 2. Whether the procedure under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) was violated by not providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing an adverse order. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Notification No. 09/2023 The appellant initially challenged the validity of Notification No. 09/2023, which extended the time for completing assessment proceedings. However, during the appeal, the appellant chose to give up this contention. The learned Single Judge had previously rejected the appellant's challenge to the notification, and the appellant did not pursue this issue further in the present appeal. Thus, the Court did not delve into this matter further, focusing instead on procedural aspects under the CGST Act. Issue 2: Violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be provided where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. This provision ensures that the principles of natural justice are upheld in tax proceedings. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which requires an opportunity of hearing to be granted irrespective of whether the assessee has filed a reply to the show cause notice. The Court noted that the provision is designed to ensure fairness in the adjudication process, especially when an adverse decision is contemplated. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act before the adverse order was passed. Despite the appellant not filing a reply to the show cause notice, the procedural requirement of granting a hearing was not waived. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles of natural justice as enshrined in Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, determining that the absence of a hearing constituted a procedural lapse. This procedural defect warranted the setting aside of the adverse orders at Annexures-C and C1. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the adjudication process was flawed due to the lack of a hearing. The respondent's counsel did not effectively counter this procedural argument, leading the Court to prioritize the principles of natural justice over procedural technicalities. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act was a significant procedural irregularity. Consequently, the orders at Annexures-C and C1 were set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration, allowing the appellant to furnish a reply to the show cause notice. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court's decision reinforced the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the CGST Act, particularly the need to provide an opportunity of hearing before passing adverse orders. The judgment underscores the principle that procedural fairness is integral to the legitimacy of tax adjudication processes. Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The stand alone provision of Section 75 (4) of the CGST Act requires that before any adverse order is being passed, opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded." Core Principles Established: The judgment establishes that the procedural safeguard of granting a hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, is indispensable and cannot be circumvented, even if the assessee fails to respond to a show cause notice. Final Determinations on Each Issue: 1. The challenge to the validity of Notification No. 09/2023 was not pursued by the appellant, and thus, the Court did not make a determination on this issue. 2. The Court determined that the procedural requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act was violated, leading to the setting aside of the adverse orders and remittance for further proceedings.
|
