2020 (1) TMI 931 - HC - GST

Court quashes orders for violating statutory provisions, remands matter for proper proceedings.

M/s. Serajuddin And Co. Versus Union Of India, State Of Odisha, Commissioner Of CT, Odisha, State Tax Officer, CT And GST Circle, Barbil

The High Court found that the impugned orders were passed in violation of statutory provisions as the petitioners' requests for a hearing and additional ... Demand of GST - order issued u/s 73 ignoring the request for granting further time to submit reply to Show cause notice (SCN) - Principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing not provided - HELD THAT:- A perusal of sub-section 4 of the Section 75 of “the Act” makes it clear that whenever an assessee, chargeable with tax and penalty makes a request in writing for opportunity of hearing, such an opportunity should be granted to him - Here, admittedly though a request was made on 4.12.2019 under Annexure-4 for personal hearing, however, without granting the same the impugned orders have been passed. Further, despite receipt of the request dated 3.12.2019 under Annexure-4 for grant of additional time for filing show cause, without passing any order on the same, the impugned orders have been passed. There are no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the impugned order under Annexure-5 Series have been passed in violation of the statutory requirements - matter remanded back to State Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Barbil – opposite party no.4 to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law - application allowed by way of remand. Issues: Violation of statutory requirements in passing impugned orders without granting opportunity of hearing and without responding to the request for time.In this case, the petitioners received a show cause notice under Section 73 of the OGST Act, 2017 for non-payment of taxes. The petitioners requested time to file a reply and expressed their wish to be heard in person. However, the impugned orders were passed without responding to these requests. The petitioner's counsel argued that the orders were passed in violation of statutory provisions, specifically sub-sections 4 & 5 of Section 75 of the Act. The counsel highlighted that the Act mandates granting an opportunity of hearing when requested and allowing adjournments for sufficient cause, which was not done in this case. The impugned orders were challenged on the grounds of procedural irregularities.The learned Additional Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes defended the impugned orders, but did not dispute the receipt of the requests made by the petitioners. The Court analyzed sub-section 4 of Section 75 of the Act, which clearly states that when an assessee requests an opportunity of hearing in writing, it must be granted. Despite the petitioners' requests for personal hearing and additional time for filing the reply, the impugned orders were passed without fulfilling these requirements. The Court concluded that the impugned orders were indeed passed in violation of statutory provisions, leading to the decision to quash the orders and remand the matter back to the State Tax Officer to proceed in accordance with the law. The petitioners were directed to cooperate in the proceedings.Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the writ application, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in such matters. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of procedural fairness and compliance with legal provisions in administrative decision-making processes related to taxation matters.