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>High Court Nullifies Tax Order, Mandates Proper Notice and Fair Hearing Under HPGST Act Provisions</h1> <h3>M/s Microtek Himachal Power Products Private Limited Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others</h3> HC set aside an order under HPGST Act due to procedural irregularities. The Advocate General acknowledged the error and proposed treating the impugned ... Violation of principles of natural justice - no prior show cause notice as mandated in Section 74 (1) of the HPGST Act, issued - Challenge to assessment order u/s 74 (9) of the HPGST/CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In view of the submissions of learned Advocate General, the impugned order dt. 20.06.2023 is set aside; the same is directed to be treated as a Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner; the petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to reply to the same; on the receipt of the reply of the petitioner, a personal hearing be offered by the 2nd respondent and then reasoned order be passed in accordance with law and communicated to the petitioner. The petition is disposed off. Issues: Violation of natural justice due to absence of prior show cause notice as mandated in Section 74 (1) of the HPGST Act.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order dated 20.06.2023, passed by the second respondent under Section 74 (9) of the HPGST/CGST Act, 2017, which was purportedly a summary of a Show Cause Notice. The order contained a table indicating tax liability and a direction to pay the said liability, raising concerns about the absence of a prior show cause notice as required by law. The petitioner contended that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice due to this deficiency.The Advocate General representing the respondents acknowledged the error in the order, clarifying that the second respondent had intended to issue a Show Cause Notice but mistakenly included a determination of tax liability in the document. He proposed treating the impugned order as a Show Cause Notice, granting the petitioner an opportunity to respond, after which a reasoned order would be passed in compliance with the law.In light of the submissions made by the Advocate General, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2023 and directed it to be treated as a Show Cause Notice. The petitioner was given four weeks to submit a reply, following which a personal hearing would be conducted by the second respondent. Subsequently, a reasoned order would be passed and communicated to the petitioner, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and principles of natural justice.The Court disposed of the Writ petition along with any pending applications, without imposing any costs on either party involved in the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
