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 Notice Invalidated: Procedural Defects Expose Hearing Rights Violation Under Section 73 and 75(4)</h1> <h3>M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Raipur, Additional Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Chhattisgarh,</h3> M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Raipur, Additional Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Chhattisgarh, - ... Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are related to a notice issued under Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically regarding the absence of details for personal hearing in the notice and the requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing as per Section 75(4) of the Act.Issue 1: Lack of details in the notice for personal hearingThe petitioner argued that the notice issued by the Revenue lacked essential details such as the date, time, and venue for the personal hearing, which is a violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017. The petitioner contended that an opportunity should have been granted before determining the tax value, and since no such opportunity was provided, the notice should be deemed illegal and set aside.Issue 2: Opposing arguments by the StateOn the contrary, the State's counsel opposed the petitioner's submissions, stating that multiple opportunities were given to the petitioner to appear before the authority, which were not utilized. The State argued that since the petitioner did not avail the opportunities and did not request a personal hearing, the provisions of Section 75(4) would not be applicable in this case. The State also highlighted that the authority had issued a notice and allowed the petitioner to file a reply.Judgment:After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the material on record, the Court noted that the notice dated 11.08.2021 did not specify the details for the personal hearing, as required by law. Referring to Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, which mandates granting an opportunity of hearing upon request from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, the Court directed the authorities to provide the petitioner with a proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with the said provision. The Revenue was instructed to set a date for the petitioner's personal appearance, and failure to comply with the directive may result in further action by the Revenue. The petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.
TaxTMI 