Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (10) TMI 554 - HC - GST


Issues:
Challenge to tax orders under GST Act for financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 based on lack of opportunity for personal hearing.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged tax orders for three financial years under the GST Act, alleging a violation of natural justice as they were not granted an opportunity for personal hearing. The competent authority had called for tax payments, interest, and penalties for non-compliance within 30 days, failing which recovery actions were threatened under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act. The petitioners also contested show-cause notices issued earlier for the same years. The petitioner, a water filter machine manufacturer registered under the GST Act, regularly discharged tax liabilities through monthly returns. Show-cause notices claimed significant amounts for the respective years, leading to final orders determining substantial sums owed by the petitioner. The challenge was primarily based on the absence of a personal hearing, citing violations of natural justice principles and referring to relevant legal precedents like M/s. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India.

The court acknowledged that the impugned orders were indeed passed without affording the petitioner a personal hearing, despite the petitioner indicating in the reply that they did not opt for one. The petitioner's counsel argued that this was an inadvertent mistake, emphasizing the importance of a personal hearing to present their case effectively. The Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) did not contest the legal position highlighted by the petitioner's counsel and agreed to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing within three weeks. Subsequently, fresh orders would be issued based on the reassessment. The court, solely on the grounds of the denial of natural justice, set aside the three tax orders issued by the competent authority and directed a fresh decision after the personal hearing, to be completed within two weeks from the date of the hearing.

The court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case presented by either party, focusing solely on the procedural irregularity regarding the lack of a personal hearing. The petition was allowed to the extent mentioned, with direct service permitted for compliance with the court's directives.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates