9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 834 - HC - GSTValidity of Assessment order - works contractor - Direct respond to SCN not given, instead writing was sent to the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department and marking a copy to the fourth respondent - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that a quietus can be given to the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and ensuring that an opportunity of hearing in person is given to the writ petitioner as the SCN vide paragraph 8 clearly mentions that the writ petitioner should appear in person and explain. In other words, without going into the question as to whether all the assessees would be entitled to a personal hearing, i.e., leaving that question open, in the case on hand, as the fourth respondent in the SCN has opted to give a personal hearing to the writ petitioner, it is only appropriate that the writ petitioner is heard in person. The impugned order made by the fourth respondent, is set aside - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order dated 09.01.2019 under GST Act for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on failure to respond to show cause notice (SCN) and seeking personal hearing. Analysis: The main writ petition challenged an order dated 09.01.2019 under the GST Act for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The contention was that the petitioner, a registered Works Contractor, had raised an invoice before the GST regime commenced on 01.07.2017. Prior to the impugned order, a show cause notice (SCN) was issued on 01.12.2018, but the petitioner responded indirectly by writing to the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department. The impugned order was made on the basis that the petitioner did not file objections/explanation in response to the SCN, as the letter to the Executive Engineer was considered a response. The court considered the narrow issue of the petitioner's response to the SCN. The court noted that the petitioner indirectly responded to the SCN by marking a copy of the letter to the fourth respondent. The Additional Government Pleader acknowledged this indirect response and agreed that setting aside the impugned order for a personal hearing was appropriate. The court decided to set aside the impugned order to allow for the petitioner's objections/explanation to be considered and a personal hearing to be granted as per the SCN. A consent order was passed setting aside the impugned order solely for the purpose of facilitating the consideration of the petitioner's objections/explanation and providing a personal hearing. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, leaving all questions open for the fourth respondent's reconsideration. A personal hearing was scheduled for the petitioner on 22.09.2021, and the explanation dated 14.12.2018 was to be treated as the objection/explanation for the hearing. The fourth respondent was directed to pass fresh orders expeditiously, within four weeks from the personal hearing, and communicate the decision to the petitioner promptly. Finally, the writ petition and miscellaneous petition were disposed of with the outlined directives, and no costs were awarded.
|
