9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 512 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - impugned order is passed without an opportunity of a personal hearing being granted to the petitioner - contrary to Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The impugned order is passed contrary to the principles of natural justice as recognised by the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and, therefore, it satisfies one of the parameters for exercising discretion of this Court to entertain the petition inspite of there being an alternate remedy of an appeal. This is a clear case where the adjudicating officer was required to take into consideration the specific request as made by the petitioner that an opportunity of personal hearing be granted to the petitioner. When such specific plea was taken, a mechanical approach was adopted by the adjudicating officer in only noticing the box where inadvertently the petitioner had put a tick mark on No . Thus, this was not a case where the petitioner had expressly waived its right of personal hearing. In the absence of the petitioner waiving its right of a personal hearing, the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act were squarely applicable and accordingly, an obligation was cast on the adjudicating officer to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner having not been granted hearing, the impugned order would be required to be held to be in breach of the principles of natural justice and ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Respondent no. 3 shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after considering all contentions of the petitioner, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise be undertaken by respondent no. 3 within a period of four weeks from the date of hearing - impugned order set aside - petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the violation of principles of natural justice in the context of a show cause notice issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner, engaged in freight forwarding and related services, received a show cause notice demanding a substantial amount of tax, interest, and penalty. - The petitioner contended that the show cause notice did not grant an opportunity for a personal hearing as requested, contrary to Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. - The respondents argued that since the petitioner had inadvertently marked "No" for personal hearing in their reply, no hearing was granted. - The court found that the impugned order was passed without granting a personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice as per Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Issue 2: Adjudicating Officer's Obligation - The court noted that the petitioner had explicitly requested a personal hearing despite the inadvertent marking of "No" in the reply. - It was emphasized that the adjudicating officer should have considered the specific request for a hearing rather than taking a mechanical approach based on the tick mark. - As the petitioner did not waive the right to a personal hearing, the impugned order was deemed to be in breach of natural justice and contrary to Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Conclusion: - The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing respondent no. 3 to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner. - Respondent no. 3 was instructed to consider all contentions and pass an appropriate order within four weeks, in compliance with the law. - The judgment was disposed of with no costs incurred by either party.
|
