High Court Upholds GST Order, Finds No Procedural Irregularities and Affirms Petitioner's Right to Statutory Appeal Mechanism

HC dismissed writ petition challenging GST order. Court found no substantial violation of natural justice, as NAHI information was disclosed in show-cause notice and petitioner had opportunity for personal hearing. Since statutory appeal remedy existed, petition was rejected without costs.

---

---

Issues:
The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 03.08.2023 passed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act).

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Supply of Information:
The petitioner argued that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice as the information received from NAHI, which formed the basis of the show-cause notice and the impugned order, was not supplied to them. However, the Government Pleader contended that the details of the data received from NAHI were disclosed in the show-cause notice itself, hence there was no violation of natural justice.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Personal Hearing:
The petitioner further contended that there was a violation of natural justice in providing a personal hearing. They stated that the notice fixing the date for personal hearing was served on the same day as the hearing, and the subsequent notice did not provide enough time for preparation due to the weekend. The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner had ample opportunity to attend the personal hearing, as they were located in Vijayawada where the hearing took place.

Court's Decision:
The court found that even though the information received from NAHI was not directly supplied to the petitioner, its contents were disclosed in the show-cause notice, mitigating the violation of natural justice. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. Regarding the personal hearing, the court determined that the petitioner had sufficient time to attend but failed to do so without a justifiable reason. The court emphasized that if a person does not avail the opportunity of personal hearing, they cannot later complain about it. As the petitioner had the statutory alternative remedy of appeal available, the court dismissed the writ petition on these grounds, without any order as to costs.

---