9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 244 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - failure on the part of the respondent to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order - HELD THAT - Initially the notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued on 26.12.2023 wherein the time limit was fixed for filing the reply on or before 25.01.2024. Accordingly the reply was filed on 25.01.2024. Further in the said notice the date of personal hearing was fixed on 03.01.2024 which is 3 weeks prior to the expiry of time limit provided by the respondent for filing the reply. Though a detailed reply dated 25.01.2024 was already filed by the petitioner without considering the same a reminder notice dated 07.03.2024 has been issued by the respondent whereby once again the time limit for filing the reply was fixed as on or before 14.03.2024 and the date of personal hearing was fixed on 11.03.2024. Subsequently the petitioner had filed his 2nd reply dated 14.03.2024 along with a copy of the 1st reply dated 25.01.2024. Thereafter without providing any opportunity of personal hearing the respondent had passed the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 which is contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act 2017. Conclusion - The impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice without providing any proper opportunity to the petitioner. In such view of the matter this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the respondent. Petition disposed off by way of remand.
**Issues Presented and Considered:**
The core legal question in this case is whether the respondent violated principles of natural justice by failing to provide the petitioner with a proper opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order dated 22.04.2024. **Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:** **Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:** The petitioner argued that the impugned order contravened Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, which requires providing sufficient opportunity to the party before passing an adverse order. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice principles in administrative proceedings. **Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:** The court noted that the respondent fixed the date of personal hearing before the deadline for filing the reply, which rendered the hearing merely a formality. The court criticized the respondent for not following established procedures and emphasized the need for proper adherence to principles of natural justice. **Key Evidence and Findings:** The court considered the timeline of notices, replies, and the absence of a meaningful opportunity for personal hearing in its assessment of the case. It highlighted the importance of allowing parties to present their case effectively before making a decision. **Application of Law to Facts:** The court applied the legal framework of natural justice and procedural fairness to the facts of the case, finding that the respondent's actions fell short of the required standards. It emphasized the need for a fair and transparent process in administrative proceedings. **Treatment of Competing Arguments:** While the respondent argued that a personal hearing was scheduled before the reply was filed, the court found this practice to be inadequate and merely for compliance purposes. The court sided with the petitioner's contention that a genuine opportunity for personal hearing was not provided. **Conclusions:** The court concluded that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice due to the lack of a proper opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. As a result, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of following established procedures and ensuring a fair process for all parties involved. **Significant Holdings:** The court's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration establishes the core principle that administrative proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing parties with a genuine opportunity to be heard before making adverse decisions.
|
