9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the parties. 3. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek quashing of an Order dated 18th August 2023 passed by Respondent Nos. 3 on the ground that the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act") and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Petitioner No. 1 is a private company registered under the CGST Act and under the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 ("MGST Act"). For the purpose of effecting taxable output supplies, Petitioner No. 1 availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the goods and services supplied by it. 5. An assessment was conducted on the returns of the Petitioner, and after sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TC had been availed by Petitioner No. 1 on the basis of difference in ITC between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. Along with the said notice there was an additional document annexed containing all particulars as in DRC 01. Additionally, the said document contained the date and time of personal hearing, which skipped the attention of the Petitioner as it felt that the said additional document was nothing but a repetition of DRC-01A. 9. In response to the said Show Cause Notice, Petitioner No. 1 made detailed submission by its reply dated 4th July 2023 in Form DRC-06 denying the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice and specifically seeking an opportunity of personal hearing to explain its view point and position qua the allegations levelle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. On the other hand, the Respondents contend that no personal hearing was required to be given to Petitioner No. 1 as it had not marked "YES" in the dialogue box "Option of personal hearing". Further, it is the case of the Respondents that no such personal hearing was even otherwise required to be given as Petitioner No. 1 had filed a detailed reply denying the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice and the contentions raised by Petitioner No. 1 in the said reply had been dealt with by the said Order dated 18th August 2023. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on record. Section 75(4) of the CGST / MGST Act reads as under: "(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the principles of natural justice and exfacie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST / MGST Act. 17. We are supported in this view by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Kuehne Nagel Private Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 15210 of 2023), Hydro Pneumatic Accessories India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Muland West & Anr. (Writ Petition (L) No. 33343 of 2023), of which one of us (Justice G. S. Kulkarni) was a member and Mauli Sai Developers Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 38399 of 2022) passed by this Division Bench. 18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we dispose of this Writ Petition by the following Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
