9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iz (a) where a request in specific is received in writing from the person chargeable; (b) where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person - This is trite that when language of statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of its consequences. In the instant case whether or not the petitioners have specifically asked for personal hearing, fact remains that the adverse decision was contemplated against the petitioners. In that event, it was obligatory and mandatory on the part of respondents to provide the petitioners opportunity of personal hearing. Admittedly, no opportunity of personal hearing has been provided in both the matters. Resultantly, the decision making process adopted by the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, wherein the amount determined was Rs. 7.37 crores. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 21.1.2023. In the final order dated 17.2.2023 (Annexure P-6), the amount of tax, interest and penalty is quantified as Rs. 9.76 crores. It is pointed out that in the other connected matter, the dates are almost same. However, the amount mentioned in the show cause notice is Rs. 1.18 crores, whereas final tax, interest and penalty imposed is to the tune of Rs. 14.56 crores. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a plain reading of Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the Act makes it clear that providing opportunity of hearing is a mandatory requirement. The said requirement needs to be fulfilled in twin situations :- (I) Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the contrary, it talk about only 'opportunity of hearing'. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued as prescribed in form DRC-01, the petitioner was required to opt for 'personal hearing' which was admittedly not opted and in that event, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents. 8. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the said prescribed form wherein 'detail of personal hearing etc.' were mentioned. It is submitted that five heads mentioned in this prescribed statutory form itself makes it clear that there are two stages, one relates to filing of reply and second regarding grant of personal hearing. Thus, law makers were conscious that personal hearing is different than the requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 711). 14. The language employed in sub-section 4 of Section 75 of the Act leaves no room for any doubt that the word 'or' is used by the law makers for a specific purpose. Although, in the first portion of the statute, i.e. sub-section 4 of Section 75 of the Act, the statute talks about a specific request, the portion after the word 'or' makes it clear like cloudless sky that opportunity of hearing is required to be given, even in those cases where no such request is made but adverse decision is contemplated against such person. We find support in our view by the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in M/s. BL Pahariya Medical Store (supra). 15. The ancillary question springs up from the argument of learned Government Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
