Tax Demand Quashed: Procedural Fairness Prevails, First Adjournment Request Granted Under Section 75 GST Act

HC allowed petitioner's writ petition challenging tax demand. The court found the rejection of adjournment request hyper-technical, noting it was the first request at personal hearing stage. HC set aside the order and demand notice, directing a fresh personal hearing under Section 75 (4) and (5) of Karnataka GST Act, emphasizing procedural fairness and opportunity to be heard.

---

---

Issues:
Request for adjournment due to daughter's illness; Rejection of adjournment request; Interpretation of Section 75 (4) and (5) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside an order and a demand notice. The petitioner had requested an adjournment due to his daughter's illness, which was declined by the adjudicating officer. The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 75 (5) of the Act, which limits adjournments to three occasions, should be considered. The revenue's counsel contended that the request should have been made earlier. The court noted that it was the first adjournment request at the personal hearing stage and referred to Section 75 (4) and (5) of the Act, emphasizing the requirement to grant an opportunity of hearing upon a written request. The court found the rejection of the adjournment request to be hyper-technical and set aside the order and demand notice, remanding the matter for a personal hearing as per the Act.

The court highlighted that an opportunity of hearing must be granted upon a request from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or when an adverse decision is contemplated. The court criticized the hyper-technical rejection of the adjournment request, noting that it was the first request at the personal hearing stage. The court emphasized the provisions of Section 75 (4) and (5) of the Act, which allow adjournments for valid reasons, subject to a limit of three occasions. Consequently, the court set aside the order and demand notice, directing the petitioner to attend a personal hearing on a specified date.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition, setting aside the order and demand notice. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and granting adjournments when valid reasons are presented. All contentions were kept open, and the petitioner was instructed to attend a personal hearing as per the Act.

---