9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2023. In the said request for grant of time, at Sl. No. 7, in the option for personal hearing , though the petitioner put tick mark in the No column, but that is meant for that time petition itself. Therefore, once the petitioner is asking for time, there is no need for mentioning of any personal hearing in the petition under Annexure-3. However, the same should have been acted upon by the authority by giving opportunity of hearing as per the statute. The statute requires that at least three opportunities should be given to the assessee. The same has not been complied with. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties have shown haste in passing the order dated 24.05.2023 under Annexure-4, though the adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade an application under Rule 142 (4) of the OGST Rules, 2017 on 29.04.2023 under Annexure-3 seeking 30 days time for submission of reply against Notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated 31.03.2023 under Section 73 of the said Act for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 vide Reference No. ZD210323019782S dated 31.03.2023, instead of granting time, the order impugned has been passed under Annexure-4, which is arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to provisions of law and has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. More so, the statute requires that three opportunities should be given to the assessee to furnish his reply, but in the present case, no such compliance of the statute has been made by the authority concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me has not been complied with. On the other hand, when the request is made for grant of 30 days time vide application dated 29.04.2023 under Annexure-3, the order under Section 73 has been passed on 24.05.2023 under Annexure-4, which is before expiry of the 30 days period. The reliance placed to the case of this Court in the case of Serajuddin and Co. v. Union of India, 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 24 (Ori), wherein this Court at paragraphs-5 and 6 observed as follows:- 5. A perusal of sub-section (4) of the Section 75 of the Act makes it clear that whenever an assessee, chargeable with tax and penalty and makes a request in writing for opportunity of hearing, such an opportunity should be granted to him. Here, admittedly though a req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
