2023 (12) TMI 232 - HC - GST

GST assessment order quashed for denying personal hearing under Section 75(4) CGST Act

Gabriel India Limited Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Rishi Luharuka Versus State Tax Officer Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence) Group IV, State Tax Officer Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) Group-II, State Tax Officer Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) Adjudication-I, Assistant Commissioner (ST) Hosur – II Circle

The Madras HC set aside a GST assessment order passed under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 for violating principles of natural justice. The court ... Determination of Tax / GST - Validity of order passed u/s 75(4) - Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order is passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to them and also without considering the written submissions and documents filed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This is the problem the assessees throughout India are facing, i.e. when it is uploaded as “Yes, it shows as “No” in the downloaded printout. The specific request made by the petitioner in the reply by way of prayer was, to provide opportunity of personal hearing, in the event of passing any adverse order against the petitioner. Considering the provision under Section 75 (4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which mandates the respondents to provide an opportunity of personal hearing, where any adverse decision is contemplated against the assessee, irrespective of any request of personal hearing from the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has also stated in the reply filed to the show cause notice that they may be provided an opportunity of personal hearing, in the event of passing any adverse order against them. This Court is of the considered view that at any cost, the respondents ought to have afforded the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner considering the statement that the respondent is going to determine the turn over and should have complied the provisions of the Act strictly. Otherwise, this defect could not be rectified which would cause loss of revenue to the Department. This Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order in Assessment Order is set aside - Petition allowed. Issues:The main issue in this case is the lack of opportunity for personal hearing provided to the petitioner before the passing of the Assessment Order, which is alleged to be a violation of principles of natural justice.Summary:The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order passed by the 1st respondent, contending that it was done without granting an opportunity for personal hearing and without considering the written submissions and documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner pointed out that the date of personal hearing mentioned in the show cause notice was before the stipulated time limit for filing a reply, which goes against the principles of natural justice.The petitioner's counsel referred to Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which mandates providing an opportunity of personal hearing before passing any adverse order. The petitioner had requested a personal hearing in their reply to the show cause notice, emphasizing the importance of this procedural safeguard.The respondent argued that the petitioner had indicated 'No' for the option of personal hearing in the documents, but the petitioner countered this by presenting evidence that they had actually opted for a personal hearing. The discrepancy between the uploaded and downloaded versions of the document was highlighted as a common issue faced by taxpayers.After hearing both parties, the Court found that the petitioner's request for a personal hearing was valid and that the Assessment Order was passed without adhering to the mandatory provision of providing such an opportunity. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter, ensuring a detailed order is passed after affording the petitioner a proper opportunity for personal hearing.The Court emphasized the importance of complying with statutory provisions to prevent any loss of revenue to the Department. The matter was remitted back to the Authority concerned for re-consideration, with a specific date for personal hearing being fixed to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to the law.In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with the case remitted for further consideration with the requirement of providing a proper opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner.