Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
High Court quashes orders for lack of hearing under Section 75(4) of TN GST Act. The High Court of Madras found that the impugned orders were issued without granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
High Court quashes orders for lack of hearing under Section 75(4) of TN GST Act.
The High Court of Madras found that the impugned orders were issued without granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite the petitioner's delayed response to Show Cause Notices, the court held that a personal hearing should have been provided before passing adverse orders. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders, remitting the cases back to the respondents for a fresh decision after granting the petitioner a proper hearing based on their representation. The court also set deadlines for further proceedings to ensure expeditious resolution without affecting the limitation period.
Issues: Opportunity of personal hearing as per Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The High Court of Madras heard the case where the impugned orders were passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing as required by Section 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court noted that the petitioner had replied to the Show Cause Notices belatedly but without specifically requesting a personal hearing. Despite this, the respondents proceeded to pass adverse orders without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, which was deemed necessary. The court emphasized that even though the reply was late, the respondents should have called for a personal hearing before passing adverse orders. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the cases were remitted back to the respondents to pass a speaking order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing based on their reply/representation.
The court further directed that the respondents must furnish copies of the relied-upon documents in the Show Cause Notices before passing any new orders. Additionally, the respondents were given the liberty to issue a suitable corrigendum to the Show Cause Notice within fifteen days, and the petitioner was required to reply within thirty days thereafter. Subsequently, the respondents were instructed to pass a fresh speaking order within sixty days, ensuring that the deadlines were set to expedite the proceedings without affecting the period of limitation for passing the order. The petitioner was directed to appear for a first hearing on a specified date.
In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with the above directions, and no costs were imposed. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
