TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST demand orders quashed for violating natural justice under Section 75(4) CGST Act 2017</h1> <h3>Graziano Trasmissioni India Private Limited Versus State Of Gujarat</h3> Graziano Trasmissioni India Private Limited Versus State Of Gujarat - 2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 38 (Guj.) Issues:Challenging legality and validity of Order-in-original, violation of GST Acts and Rules, lack of opportunity for personal hearing.Analysis:The petitions sought to challenge the legality and validity of an Order-in-original dated 25.03.2022 and 2 Summary Orders passed by respondent No.3, alleging violations of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, as well as principles of natural justice. The petitioner, a unit manufacturing automobile components, exported goods under Letter of Undertaking without payment of GST, inadvertently misreporting export turnover in a GST return. Respondent No.3 raised queries, to which the petitioner responded, clarifying the error. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued a demand notice for ITC along with interest and penalty, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice and eventual passing of the impugned order without affording a personal hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that Section 75(4) mandates granting an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated, regardless of a formal request. The Department argued that since the proceedings were online and no hearing was requested, it was not necessary. However, the Court emphasized that personal hearing is essential in such cases. Consequently, solely due to the lack of a personal hearing, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed respondent No.3 to provide a personal hearing on 18.07.2022, allowing document submission by 13.07.2022. The Court stressed no adjournments should be sought, and this decision does not prejudice the final outcome. Both petitions were disposed of accordingly, with direct service permitted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
