2024 (3) TMI 49 - HC - GST

Interpretation of statute - word or is used in section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017 - opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Courts have consistently upheld the disjunctive nature of or in statutory interpretation, adhering to the principle of giving effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the statutes. This principle, known as the plain meaning rule or the literal rule of interpretation, emphasizes the importance of interpreting statutes based on their plain and ordinary meaning, as understood by the average person reading the text of the statute. Moreover, the disjunctive function of or in statutes is essential for upholding principles of fairness, equity, and access to justice. By offering alternative paths or options, statutes accommodate diverse individual needs and situations, promoting inclusivity and mitigating potential disparities or injustices. This is particularly significant in areas of law concerning rights, benefits, and entitlements, where the flexibility provided by or ensures that legal provisions can be applied in a manner that reflects the realities and complexities of human experiences. The significance of the word or'' in Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017 cannot be underestimated. The usage of the word or'' extends beyond its disjunctive function; it serves as a pivotal indicator of legislative intent regarding the necessity of providing an opportunity for personal hearing. By incorporating or'' into the statutory language, lawmakers explicitly delineate two distinct scenarios in which the opportunity of personal hearing must be afforded either upon application by the individual subject to penalty or tax imposition, or in the event of contemplation of an adverse order. Personal hearing represents a fundamental aspect of procedural fairness and natural justice, ensuring that individuals have the opportunity to present their case, respond to allegations, and address any concerns or mitigating factors directly to the decision-maker. It is a vital safeguard against arbitrary or unjust decisions - Personal hearing provides a forum for nuanced discussion and exploration of these complexities, enabling decision-makers to make well-informed and equitable decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances at hand. The Supreme Court in M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GAUHATI OTHERS 2015 (5) TMI 500 - SUPREME COURT , upheld the importance of personal hearing before making any decision. The Supreme Court stated that even in administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking decision is necessary. From a bare reading of the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 it is palpably clear that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded by the Respondent No.2 to the petitioner, which is a statutory obligation under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 3, while dismissing the appeal failed to correct this glaring impropriety in its order dated December 16, 2022. These orders cannot be allowed to pass through the legislative barriers of natural justice, erected to safeguard individual rights and prevent abuse of power. Let there be a writ of certiorari issued against the order dated July 7, 2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 and order dated December 16, 2022, passed by the Respondent No.3. These orders are quashed and set aside - the Respondent No. 2 is directed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law within a period of two months from date. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Interpretation of statutory language, specifically the word "or" in Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017.
3. Necessity of personal hearing in administrative decisions impacting civil consequences.

Summary:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner, owner of a hotel registered under the UPGST Act, 2017, was issued a notice on 25.03.2021 for the period December 2017 under Section 74 of the UPGST Act. The petitioner failed to reply, leading to an order under Section 74(9) on 07.07.2021 and issuance of DRC 07 on 13.07.2021. The petitioner contended that no date, time, or venue for a personal hearing was fixed, violating principles of natural justice. The appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) partially succeeded, deleting the supply estimated for catering but upholding the levy based on seized documents. The court emphasized that an opportunity for personal hearing is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017, which was not provided, thus violating natural justice principles.

2. Interpretation of Statutory Language:
The court highlighted the disjunctive nature of the word "or" in Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017, emphasizing its role in providing alternatives rather than cumulative conditions. The word "or" allows for flexibility, mandating a personal hearing either upon request or when an adverse decision is contemplated. This interpretation aligns with the principle of giving effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of statutory language, as upheld in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. The court reiterated that interpreting "or" as "and" would impose stricter conditions than intended, leading to unreasonable outcomes.

3. Necessity of Personal Hearing:
The court underscored the importance of personal hearing in ensuring procedural fairness and preventing arbitrary decisions. Citing Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Others and Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. and Others, the court affirmed that personal hearing is mandatory even if not explicitly requested by the assessee. This principle was further supported by the Supreme Court in Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Guhati and Others, emphasizing that personal hearing is necessary in administrative actions with civil consequences. The court concluded that the failure to provide a personal hearing in the present case constituted a gross violation of natural justice principles.

Conclusion:
The court issued a writ of certiorari, quashing the orders dated 07.07.2021 and 16.12.2022, and directed the Respondent No. 2 to grant an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within two months. The writ petition was allowed, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and statutory mandates.