9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned ex-parte Order in Form GST DRC-07 Reference No. DC/E-002/Bhiwandi-501/ LTU-01/ Kalyan/DRC-07_Audit_2017-18/ 2023-24/B-208 dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Exhibit "A"); 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of freight forwarding, clearance, logistics, warehousing, distribution etc. On 5th January 2021, respondent no. 3 issued a notice for conducting audit of the books of account of the petitioner for the period 2017-18. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring, respondent no. 3 proceeded to pass the impugned order. The petitioner would, therefore, submit that the impugned order is passed without an opportunity of a personal hearing being granted to the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, is contrary to Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "CGST Act"). The petitioner, therefore, submits that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and is required to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the respondents would submit that in the reply dated 11th July 2023 to the show cause notice, although the petitioner sought for personal hearing, however, while tick marking the box relating to the option for personal hearing, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner in reply to the show cause notice has explicitly stated for personal hearing before any decision is taken by respondent no. 3, although inadvertently, it had ticked mark the box "No". In our view, on holistic reading of the reply, there appears to be an inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner of tick marking the box "No," because in the very same letter, the petitioner has expressly requested for personal hearing. The department was thus under an obligation to grant an opportunity of a hearing to the petitioner. 10. In our opinion, this is a clear case where the adjudicating officer was required to take into consideration the specific request as made by the petitioner that an opportunity of personal hearing be granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
