2024 (6) TMI 696 - HC - GST

Liability of petitioner u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - While noticing that a common order is passed with respect to the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19, taking note of the contention that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity as contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the KGST Act when the order passed seems to be adverse to the interest of the petitioner, it would meet the ends of justice by setting aside the order on the ground that the petitioner is afforded an opportunity of hearing and to remit the matter back for fresh consideration before respondent No. 1. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity as mentioned under Section 75 (4) of the KGST Act and to proceed in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Liability of the petitioner u/s 73(9) of CGST/KGST Act for tax periods of 2017-18 and 2018-19, validity of notifications dated 13.07.2022 and 06.04.2023.

Liability u/s 73(9) of CGST/KGST Act:
The petitioner challenged the liability imposed on them as per the order dated 29.12.2023 u/s 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act for the tax periods of 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the clubbing of financial years and passing a common order was impermissible. The petitioner argued that they were not granted an opportunity as required u/s 75(4) of the KGST Act before adverse orders were passed. The court, after hearing the matter, set aside the order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of affording the petitioner a proper opportunity for hearing.

Validity of Notifications:
The petitioner also sought setting aside of the notifications dated 13.07.2022 and 06.04.2023. However, the court clarified that the setting aside of the impugned order did not imply a finding on the contention regarding passing a common order for two different financial years. The court focused on the lack of sufficient opportunity granted to the petitioner and directed the matter to be reconsidered afresh by respondent No. 1 in accordance with law. The court allowed dispensation for the production of certified copies of the notifications, as there was no adjudication regarding them in the present case.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order at Annexure-'H' and remitted the matter to respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity as per Section 75(4) of the KGST Act. The petitioner was instructed to appear before respondent No. 1 on a specified date without further notice. The court allowed dispensation for the production of certified copies of certain notifications and disposed of the petition, keeping all contentions open for future consideration.