High Court Highlights Department's Lack of Personal Hearing Details as Violation of Natural Justice
- cagoyalayush
- Oct 11, 2023
- 2 min read
The case is being heard by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, and counsel for the petitioner, Pranjal Shukla, has presented their case.
The petitioner is challenging an order dated 29.03.2023, which dismissed their appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, citing that it was filed beyond the limitation period. They are also challenging an order from 15.03.2022, where a demand was created under Section 74 of the GST Act.
The petitioner claims that they mistakenly availed of Input Tax Credit (ITC) but didn't use it. They corrected their return in July 2019. Despite this, they received a notice under Section 74 of the GST Act on 25.06.2021, proposing a liability of Rs. 1,48,160 based on a survey conducted on 27.04.2019.
The petitioner requested an adjournment and personal hearing, as their advocate was unwell.
Two reminder notices were sent in September 2021 and December 2021, and since the petitioner didn't respond, an order was issued on 15.03.2022 without providing a hearing opportunity. The petitioner's appeal was subsequently dismissed for being beyond the time limit.
The focus of the petitioner's challenge is on the original order confirming the demand under Section 74 of the GST Act, particularly the lack of a hearing opportunity.
The notices did not specify the date, time, or venue for a personal hearing ("NA" was mentioned).
The Standing Counsel confirms that no personal hearing was granted, as evident from the impugned order.
Section 75(4) of the GST Act mandates providing a hearing opportunity when an adverse decision is contemplated.
The court finds that the original order violates Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice, so it is quashed.
Consequently, the order dated 29.03.2023 is also quashed.
The matter is remanded to respondent no.3 for fresh orders, with a proper hearing opportunity and a chance for the petitioner to respond to the show-cause notice.
The petition is allowed in accordance with the above terms. Sumit Enterprises vs. State of U.P
Comments