9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed in an ex-parte proceedings without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- 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. subsection 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. In the instant case whether or not the petitioners have specifically asked for personal hearing, fact remains tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging the summary of order in form GST DRC-07 issued in consequence of Assessment order dated 26/07/2022 passed under section 73(1) of Madhya Pradesh Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as MPGST ) passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax officer (state Tax officer), Circle, Dewas in Case No. GST/1394 for the period commencing from 01/04/2020 to 31/03/2021, raising a demand for excess Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as 'ITC) to the tune of Rs. 20,94,812/- under CGST, IGST, SGST which is inclusive of interest and penalty, on the ground that the said order has been passed in an ex-parte proceedings without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner to put the submissions on record which can be verified by the FORM DRC-01 issued to the petitioner on 10/06/2022 (IV) Further, Section 75(4) of the CGST Act/MPGST Act provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the Assessee where an adverse order is to be passed against the Assessee. The relevant provision is as under: 75. General provisions relating to determination of tax. (4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. (V) That as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act/MPGST Act no adverse o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the present writ petition is being filed before this Court. 4. 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) When a specific request is received in writing from a person chargeable with tax or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the use of word or is very important in this statutory provision. Admittedly, in the present cases, the adverse decision was contemplated on said contemplation is translated into reality, when tax was levied on the petitioners. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is observed that:- It shall not be out of place to mention that sub-section (2) of Section 4-M provides specifically that appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard if he so desires before final order is passed on his appeal. That requirement according to us cannot be read impliedly as an implicit condition in the third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4-M. But it need not be impressed that when the Appellate authority has been vested with the discretion to dispense with such deposit unconditionally or on conditions, then it has to apply its mind on that question like a quasi- judicial authority taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case including the undue hardship which has been point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st such person. 9. This is trite that when language of statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of its consequences. ( See Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 711 ). 10. 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. subsection 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
