GST Order Invalidated Due to Procedural Defects: Authority Mandated to Reconsider with Fair Hearing Principles HC found the GST order under Section 75(4) was procedurally flawed. The authority failed to consider petitioner's written replies and violated natural ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
GST Order Invalidated Due to Procedural Defects: Authority Mandated to Reconsider with Fair Hearing Principles
HC found the GST order under Section 75(4) was procedurally flawed. The authority failed to consider petitioner's written replies and violated natural justice principles. HC set aside the original order, directing respondent to issue a fresh reasoned order after providing petitioner a fair hearing opportunity.
Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 75(4) of UP GST Act, 2017
The petitioner challenged the order dated 5.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 75(4) of the UP GST Act, 2017, imposing tax and interest. The petitioner contended that despite submitting written replies to the show-cause notice, the impugned order did not reflect this, leading to a false observation that no reply was filed. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of rules of natural justice, requiring the respondent authority to address the petitioner's objections and provide a hearing before passing an adverse order.
The court noted that the petitioner had submitted replies to the show-cause notice, as evidenced by the acknowledgment issued through the online portal and the filing date of 21.11.2023. However, the impugned order failed to consider these submissions, resulting in an erroneous observation that no reply was filed. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, which necessitate the respondent authority to address the petitioner's objections and grant a hearing before making a decision.
The court, after considering the arguments presented, set aside the order dated 5.12.2023 and remitted the matter to respondent No.2 for issuing a fresh reasoned and speaking order. Emphasizing the significance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the court concluded that no purpose would be served by prolonging the writ petition or seeking a counter affidavit at that stage. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to re-examine the matter after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
