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>Procedural Violations in GST Detention Invalidate Order, Mandate Fresh Hearing with Comprehensive Evidence Submission</h1> <h3>M/s Shido Pharma, represented by its Proprietor Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), The Deputy State Tax Officer, The State Tax Officer Adjudication, Intelligence – 1, Chennai.</h3> HC found merit in petitioner's claim of procedural violation under GST Act. The court set aside detention orders due to lack of proper hearing ... Detention of goods - main ground is that the petitioner was not offered any hearing prior to passing of the impugned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had filed a detailed reply on 24.03.2023 stating that the provisions of the IGST Act are inapplicable to the transaction in question. On the same date, the respondent has issued a revised notice, in Form GST MOV - 07 proceeding to apply the applicable provisions of the CGST/SGST Act - However, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to respond to that notice and the petitioner was further never heard. What had transpired on 24.03.2023 was a hearing only in respect of notice dated 18.03.2023 and not subsequent notice dated 24.03.2023. There is some merit in the allegation that the proceedings have been concluded contrary to the principles of natural justice - petitioner is permitted to appear before the 1st respondent on 05.04.2023 at 10.30 a.m., without expecting any further notice in this regard along with a reply to notice dated 24.03.2023. Writ Petitions are allowed. Issues Involved:The petitioner challenges an order of Goods detention under Section 129(3) of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017, alleging lack of hearing prior to the impugned order.Issue 1 - Lack of Opportunity for Hearing:The petitioner contended that they were not offered any hearing before the impugned order was passed. However, upon examination of records, it was found that a personal hearing did take place on 24.03.2023, but it was in relation to a notice issued on 18.03.2023 under the IGST Act, not the subsequent notice dated 24.03.2023. The petitioner had responded to the IGST Act notice by stating its inapplicability to the transaction. Subsequently, a revised notice was issued under the CGST/SGST Act without granting the petitioner an opportunity to respond or be heard. The court found merit in the allegation that the proceedings were concluded in violation of the principles of natural justice.Decision:The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 24.03.2023 (bearing Nos. 889/2022-23/ADJ, 892/2022-23/ADJ, and 890/2022-23/ADJ) due to the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the subsequent notice. The petitioner was granted permission to appear before the 1st respondent on 05.04.2023 at 10:30 a.m. without further notice, along with a reply to the notice dated 24.03.2023. After hearing the petitioner and considering the reply, if any, new orders were to be passed within a week from 05.04.2023. The Writ Petitions were allowed, and no costs were imposed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
