9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oticed that though the reply itself came to be rejected as having been filed belatedly, in the reply filed by the petitioner. The mandate under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 is clear that, when a written request is made from the person chargeable with tax or penalty seeking for personal hearing, the same is required to be considered. Clearly there is violation of the mandate under Section 75(4) of the Act and the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the request for personal hearing was made out in the reply, which having been rejected, the request for personal hearing is also to be rejected is a hyper technical interpretation which has resulted in rejection of the opportunity under Section 75(4) of the Act, which can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order passed is without affording an opportunity of hearing and that their reply filed in Form DRC 06 has been rejected as having been belatedly filed. It is submitted even if reply was filed belatedly, the obligation under Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017 to afford an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) cannot be done away with. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that, admittedly reply is filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 73(8) of the Act and rightly not been considered. It is further contended that, Section 75(4) of the Act requires request for an opportunity of hearing and as the request for opportunity of hearing having been made in the reply has been rejected, question of complying with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents are directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing before proceeding with the order. 6. In the light of the order being passed, in order to meet the ends of justice, it is just and appropriate to direct the Authority to look into the reply that has been filed by the petitioner and also permit the petitioner to raise additional legal contentions as has been raised in the present writ petition. The petitioner however, is liable to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents for lapse in filing a delayed reply. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-A is set aside. The petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 on 9.6.2023. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not avail of such opportunity, the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
