GST authorities must provide personal hearing under Section 75(4) when contemplating adverse decisions against taxpayers

MP HC held that respondents violated principles of natural justice and statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of GST Act by failing to provide opportunity of personal hearing. Court ruled that sub-section 4 mandates hearing in two situations: when specifically requested in writing or when adverse decision is contemplated. Since adverse decision was contemplated against petitioners, personal hearing was mandatory regardless of whether specifically requested. Court set aside impugned proceedings after show cause notice stage and directed respondents to provide hearing opportunity to petitioners.

---

---

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.

---