9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 71 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - no hearing granted to the petitioner - bad and illegal impugned order - demand of tax alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT - Firstly, it is seen that the petitioner had sufficiently indicated that the petitioner intended that a personal hearing be granted to the petitioner. If that be so, merely because the petitioner did not appear on 7 July, 2023, in the absence of a valid reason, it should not have been presumed by the State Tax Officer that the petitioner is not interested for hearing - it is also found that no written notice in that regard was issued adjourning the proceedings - also the impugned order does not consider the case of the petitioner even in the reply to the show cause notice as submitted. The interest of justice would require that the petitioner be granted an opportunity of being heard after which an appropriate order be passed by the State Tax Officer in accordance with law - proceedings are remanded to the State Tax Officer to be decided in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 26 July, 2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Nodal Division-12, Mumbai directing the petitioner to pay tax, interest, and penalty. Issue 1: Breach of Principles of Natural Justice The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal due to a breach of natural justice as no hearing was granted. The petitioner had requested a personal hearing in the reply submitted but was only informed of the hearing two days in advance. Despite intending to attend, the petitioner could not appear, and the State Tax Officer proceeded to pass the order without granting a final opportunity. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of State Tax Officer The petitioner argued that the State Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to levy demands under the IGST Act. The petitioner sought to have the impugned order quashed and set aside, requesting a proper hearing and a lawful decision by the State Tax Officer. Judgment: After hearing arguments from both parties and reviewing the record, the court found merit in the petitioner's contentions. It was noted that the petitioner had requested a personal hearing, and the failure to appear on one occasion should not have led to the assumption of disinterest without a valid reason. The court observed that no written notice was issued adjourning the proceedings, and the impugned order did not consider the petitioner's case adequately. In light of the above, the court decided to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26 July, 2023. The proceedings were remanded to the State Tax Officer for a decision in accordance with the law after granting the petitioner a proper opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear before the authority on 8 December, 2023, and the State Tax Officer would set a suitable date for the hearing. The court emphasized that if the petitioner failed to appear despite notice, the State Tax Officer could proceed and pass an appropriate order. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open, and the matter was disposed of with no costs incurred.
|
