Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Tax Assessment Order Quashed: Statutory Violation of Section 75(4) Denies Petitioner's Right to Personal Hearing HC allowed petitioner's writ challenging tax assessment order. Court found statutory violation of section 75(4) of U.P. G.S.T. Act by denying personal ...
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.
Tax Assessment Order Quashed: Statutory Violation of Section 75(4) Denies Petitioner's Right to Personal Hearing
HC allowed petitioner's writ challenging tax assessment order. Court found statutory violation of section 75(4) of U.P. G.S.T. Act by denying personal hearing. Impugned order was set aside, matter remitted for fresh proceedings with directive to grant proper hearing and opportunity to file reply within two weeks.
Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are related to the opportunity of personal hearing under section 75(4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017, non-affording of personal hearing to the petitioner, compliance with rules of natural justice, and setting aside the impugned order due to deficiency of procedure.
Opportunity of Personal Hearing: The judgment highlighted that section 75(4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 mandates the opportunity of personal hearing to be granted before any adverse decision is taken against a registered person or petitioner. It was noted that the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of personal hearing as the notices issued did not propose to grant personal hearing, thus violating the statutory requirement.
Compliance with Rules of Natural Justice: The court emphasized that the rules of natural justice, ingrained in the statute, prescribe a dual requirement - submission of a written reply and an oral hearing. It was clarified that failure to avail one opportunity should not lead to denial of the other, and both tests need to be satisfied independently. The petitioner's right to participate in the oral hearing and establish their case was deemed crucial, even if the written reply was not submitted.
Setting Aside the Impugned Order: The judgment concluded that the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 was passed contrary to the mandatory procedure, and the deficiency of procedure was critical to the outcome of the proceedings. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the respondent to pass a fresh order. The petitioner was directed to file a final reply to the show cause notice within two weeks and appear before the assessing authority for a reasoned order on 11.03.2024. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.