Department must grant personal hearing and consider documents after representation received but rejected for portal filing

HC held that the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing because a detailed representation dated 07.01.2022 was received by the Department on 10.01.2022 but not considered solely for not being filed through the portal. The Department is directed to afford a personal hearing, accept and peruse any documents produced, hear objections, and then proceed with the earlier show cause notices relating to the specified tax periods. The file transferred to the second respondent must be used to fix the hearing date; petition disposed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Failure to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse decision.
2. Dispute regarding the mode of communication for replies and representations.
3. Allegations of violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue 1: Failure to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse decision:
The petitioner contended that the show cause notice for revoking an erroneous refund claim was issued, and a reply was sent within the stipulated time. However, the petitioner claimed that the personal hearing notice was not sent to the portal register of the respondents. The Court emphasized the importance of granting a personal hearing before imposing any adverse decision, as per Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that the petitioner deserved a personal hearing to present objections and for the department to consider the documents submitted.

Issue 2: Dispute regarding the mode of communication for replies and representations:
The respondents argued that all communication between the assessee and the department should be through the portal, including replies to show cause notices. The petitioner, however, highlighted that unregistered dealers may not have portal access and should be allowed to send physical representations. The Court noted that physical representation was sent by the petitioner, received by the respondents, but not considered due to it not being sent through the portal. The Court directed the department to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing opportunity and consider the submitted documents.

Issue 3: Allegations of violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioner alleged a violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-consideration of the physical representation sent. The respondents claimed to have served notices through email and the common portal, providing details of personal hearing dates. Despite multiple notifications for personal hearings, the petitioner failed to appear or provide explanations. The Court found that the petitioner had sent a detailed representation, which was received by the respondents, and directed the department to fix a personal hearing date for the petitioner within three months to address the disputed show cause notices.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras directed the department to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing opportunity, consider the objections and documents submitted, and proceed with the show cause notices within a specified timeframe. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---