9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity of hearing where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The Petitioner, in this case, had requested in writing an opportunity for a hearing. In any event, the impugned order is adverse to the interest of the Petitioner. On both these counts, the impugned order should have been preceded by an opportunity of hearing. On this short ground, the impugned order must be set aside. In Kuehne Nagel Private Limited [ 2023 (12) TMI 512 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] and Hydro Pneumatic Accessories India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2023 (12) TMI 666 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], Coordinate Benches of this Court, in almost identical circumstances, have interfered with ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person. Still, the impugned order has been made without hearing the Petitioner, and this amounts to a breach of the provisions of Section 75 (4) of the MGST Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon Kuehne Nagel Private Limited Vs The State of Maharashtra Ors and Hydro Pneumatic Accessories India Pvt Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Mulund West Anr . to submit that in similar circumstances, orders made without granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing were struck down by this Court. 6. Ms Chavan learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Ms Majumdar, learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 5 and 7, defended that the impugned order is based on the reasoning reflected there. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order should have been preceded by an opportunity of hearing. On this short ground, the impugned order must be set aside. 11. In Kuehne Nagel Private Limited (supra) and Hydro Pneumatic Accessories India Pvt Ltd (supra), Coordinate Benches of this Court, in almost identical circumstances, have interfered with orders that were made without compliance with the requirement of Section 75 (4) of the MGST Act. Even in those cases, no opportunity for a hearing was granted to the Petitioners. This was considered sufficient to set aside the orders impugned in those Petitions and for a remand to make fresh orders after hearing the Petitioners. 12. Accordingly, for all the above reasons, we dispose of this Petition by making the following order:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
