9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Services Tax Act, 2017 without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - violation of principls of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It appears that State Tax authorities are continuing to conduct adjudication proceedings in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of the Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Due to procedure being not followed by State Tax authorities in conduct of adjudication proceedings, huge revenue of the State is otherwise lost which could have been protected, if due procedure is followed while passing adjudication orders. This Court in the case of M/s. Godavari Commodities Limited [2022 (4) TMI 1026 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] have already issued directions in the year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner-firm has approached this Court for quashing of the adjudication order including summary of demand passed by adjudicating authority i.e. 5th Respondent, wherein adjudication orders have been passed under Section 74 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as 'JGST Act, 2017' for short] without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner which is in utter defiance of statutory provisions i.e. JGST Act, 2017. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of trading of lubricant, bearing scraps and different type of iron materials and is registered under the provisions of Goods and Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Channel and on the strength of tax invoices, eway bills, lorry receipts etc. availed Input Tax Credit of Rs. 7,35,097.20/-. 6. Initially, Input Tax Credit of the petitioner was blocked by the 5thRespondentunder Rule 86A (1) (a) (i) of Jharkhand Goods and Services Rules, 2017 and, thereafter, the 5thRespondentissued show cause notice dated 04.04.2024to the petitioner under Section 74 (1) of JGST Act, 2017, directing to show cause as to why Input Tax Credit availed by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7,35,097.20/- be not recovered from the petitioner along with interest and penalty. In the said show cause notice, date of compliance was fixed on 3rd May, 2024 and, pursuant thereto, adjudication order dated 05.06.2024 was passed. 7. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly held that sufficient opportunity of personal hearing is required to be granted before passing an adjudication order, but, despite said authoritative pronouncement of this Court, adjudication orders have been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-State defended the adjudication orders by contending, inter alia, that prior to issuance of show cause notice, an inspection was made in the premises of the petitioner-firm and spot summons were issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of JGST Act, 2017 and even DRC-01A were issued to the petitioner which would demonstrate that there were sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice. 11. However, cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on during the proceedings." 22. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 75 (4) and 75 (5) would reveal as under:- (i) Opportunity of hearing' shall be granted on request. (ii) Opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated. (iv) If sufficient cause is shown, the proper officer can adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing. (v) However, no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times during the proceedings.' 13. In the said judgment, this Court vide paragraph 27 further directed, inter-alia, as under:- '27. The original records produced before us leave no iota of doubt that the present adjudication proceedings have been carried out by the authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng date of compliance as 04.07.2024, but, from order-sheet, it appears that alleged date of compliance was noted as 05.07.2024 and, on the first date of compliance, ex-parte order was passed against petitioner. 17. Likewise, facts of W.P.(T) No. 6028 of 2024 would reveal that although show cause notice was issued on 04.04.2024 fixing date of compliance on 03.05.2024, but, on 03.05.2024, no proceedings were held and first proceeding was held on 05.06.2024 and, on the said date itself an ex-parte order of adjudication was passed. Thus, facts of both the cases clearly reveal that proceedings have been conducted in utter violation of the principle of natural justice including the mandatory provisions as contained under Sections 75 (4) and 75 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
