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>Tax Demand Order Quashed: Petitioner Denied Fair Hearing, Authority Ordered to Reconsider with Proper Procedural Compliance</h1> <h3>M/s Santosh Traders Thru Proprietor Santosh Kumar Gonda Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy (Tax And Registration) Lko And 2 Others</h3> HC allowed the writ petition challenging tax demand order. The court found a violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not granted a personal ... Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of the same being beyond the prescribed period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- It is clear no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. It is well settled that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals Versus Commissioner Commercial Tax And 2 Others [2022 (3) TMI 492 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein this Court had issued directions, thus the orders passed against the petitioner are contrary to the mandate of Section 75 of the GST Act and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals, as such, the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 can not be sustained and the same is against the principle of natural justice, as such, the same is quashed. The respondent authority would be at liberty to to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties - Petition allowed. Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are challenging an order imposing demand, tax, and penalty under SGST and CGST for the period April 2018 to March 2019, and the dismissal of an appeal on the ground of limitation under Section 107 of the GST Act.Challenge to Order:The petitioner challenged the order dated 14.07.2021 imposing demand, tax, and penalty for the period April 2018 to March 2019 under SGST and CGST. The petitioner contended that the order confirming the demand was passed without granting a personal hearing, which is a violation of natural justice. The petitioner also argued that the order was contrary to the provisions of Section 74, Section 74(3), and Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner's appeal against the order was dismissed due to being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107 of the GST Act.Violation of Natural Justice:The Court observed that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed, which is a violation of the principle of natural justice. Citing a previous judgment, the Court held that the orders passed against the petitioner were against the mandate of Section 75 of the GST Act. Consequently, the order dated 14.07.2021 imposing demand, tax, and penalty was quashed, and the respondent authority was directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.Conclusion:In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the order imposing demand, tax, and penalty under SGST and CGST for the period April 2018 to March 2019 was allowed. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and providing an opportunity of hearing before passing orders in matters related to taxation under the GST Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
