2022 (2) TMI 349 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - Non-speaking order - discrepancies in the returns not mentioned as required under Section 61 of CGST Act, 2017 - no personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner - HELD THAT - A perusal of the paper book reveals that the allegations against the Petitioner have been mentioned the specific particulars. The Petitioner neither filed any reply to the show cause notice nor any appeal against the impugned order. The present writ petition along with pending application is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal under the statute with the appropriate Authority within four weeks.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to show cause notice under GST laws; Compliance with procedural requirements; Violation of natural justice in passing orders without personal hearing; Opportunity to file an appeal granted.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to show cause notice under GST laws:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued under GST laws. The petitioner's counsel argued that the notice was issued without mentioning discrepancies in the returns, which is mandatory under Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017. Additionally, it was contended that no pre-show cause notice consultation was held as required by Rule 142(1)A of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner also highlighted that the show cause notice was not served upon them, and no personal hearing was granted before passing a non-speaking order, thus raising concerns about procedural compliance in issuing the notice.

2. Compliance with procedural requirements:
Upon perusal of the case details, it was noted that specific allegations were made against the petitioner, who did not respond to the show cause notice or appeal against the impugned order. However, the petitioner's counsel requested an opportunity to file an appeal at a later stage. The court acknowledged the importance of procedural compliance and granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal under the statute within four weeks. Importantly, the court clarified that the appeal, if filed within the specified period, would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation, emphasizing the significance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings.

3. Violation of natural justice in passing orders without personal hearing:
The petitioner raised a crucial issue regarding the violation of natural justice, asserting that no personal hearing was granted before passing the order. The non-speaking order issued in February 2021 was deemed to be in blatant violation of natural justice principles. In response to these concerns, the court recognized the importance of affording parties a fair opportunity to present their case and be heard. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioner the chance to file an appeal, ensuring that due process and principles of natural justice were upheld in the legal proceedings.

4. Opportunity to file an appeal granted:
In light of the arguments presented and the procedural lapses identified, the court disposed of the writ petition and granted the petitioner the opportunity to file an appeal within a specified timeframe. By allowing the petitioner to pursue the appeal without facing limitations based on time constraints, the court demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that parties have adequate opportunities to seek redress and present their case effectively. Importantly, the court maintained neutrality by refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, thereby preserving the rights and contentions of all parties involved in the legal dispute.