9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls at any point of time. However, the notice was issued by the 1st respondent as if the petitioner had imported timber and the said information is said to have been obtained by the 1st respondent from the Customs Department. Further, according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner had received the show cause notice and they had not filed any reply for the said notice. This Court is of the view that even assuming that the petitioner had received the notices and not filed any reply, the 1st respondent is supposed to have provided the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before the passing of impugned order, which is mandated in terms of Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the same has not been done in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing to the petitioner. Further, a prior notice dated 12.07.2022 was also issued by the 1st respondent, whereby they demanded the tax amount for the value of the imported goods, which is said to have been furnished by the petitioner to the Customs Department. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only in the business of selling bone meal and they had not at all imported any materials. Hence, he would submit that the 1st respondent had wrongly understood as if the petitioner had imported timber and other products and demanded the tax amount by virtue of the prior notice. Further, the 1st respondent had passed the aforesaid impugned order without providing any opportunity of personal hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 and the same has not been done in the present case. 8. Further, the contention of the petitioner is that the supply of bone meal is exempted from the VAT duty and hence, he is not liable to pay any tax amount. However, the notice was issued by the respondent under the wrong assumption that the petitioner had imported timber. Thereafter, the impugned order was also passed, in violation of principles of natural justice, without providing any opportunity of personal hearing. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that any order has to be passed only after providing an opportunity of personal hearing. Further, in the present case, the petitioner had passed the impugned order under the misconception that the petitioner had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
