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 authorities must provide personal hearing under Section 75(4) when contemplating adverse decisions against taxpayers</h1> <h3>M/s Technosys Security System Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Deputy Commissioner, State Tax</h3> M/s Technosys Security System Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Deputy Commissioner, State Tax - 2024 (80) G.S.T.L. 4 (M. P.) Issues involved: The judgment deals with the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate under Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The key issue is whether the decision-making process adopted by the respondents, involving show cause notices and imposition of tax, interest, and penalty, adhered to the requirements of providing an opportunity of hearing as mandated by the law.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Opportunity of Hearing under Section 75(4) of GST Act The petitioners challenged the decision-making process, alleging a violation of natural justice and statutory mandate. The court analyzed Section 75(4) of the GST Act, emphasizing that an opportunity of hearing must be granted when a request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or when an adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The court highlighted the importance of the word 'or' in the statute, indicating that even in cases where no specific request for a personal hearing is made, if an adverse decision is contemplated, the opportunity of hearing should be provided. The court referred to relevant judgments to support this interpretation.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Opportunity of Hearing' The State contended that the provision does not require a 'personal hearing' but only an 'opportunity of hearing'. However, the petitioners argued that the prescribed form DRC-01 clearly distinguishes between filing a reply and requesting a personal hearing, indicating that the law recognizes the separate stages. The court agreed with the petitioners, stating that the opportunity of hearing encompasses the opportunity for a personal hearing as well.Decision and Conclusion The court found that the decision-making process by the respondents lacked providing the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, which violated the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. As a result, the proceedings after the stage of replying to show cause notices were set aside. The court directed the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing, including a personal hearing, to the petitioners in both cases. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the case, disposing of both writ petitions accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
