2024 (9) TMI 1220 - HC - GST

Natural Justice Prevails: Administrative Order Quashed Due to Lack of Hearing and Opportunity to Respond Under Principles of Fair Procedure

M/s. RGE Constructions and Development Private Limited, (Represented by its Head-Indirect Taxation, Mr. Amit Gopal Shah) Versus The Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai

HC found violation of natural justice principles in an administrative order against a real estate assessee. The court set aside the order dated ... Irregular credit reversals made by the Petitioner - replies filed by the Petitioner to the ASMT-10 notice as well as DRC-01 notice was not satisfactory - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the show cause notice dated 02.04.2024 was initially issued by the respondent, for which, a reply dated 11.04.2024 has been sent by the petitioner. Thereafter, prior to the passing of assessment order, another show cause notice was issued by the respondent on 21.05.2024, for which, the petitioner sought 4 weeks time for filing reply vide letter dated 18.06.2024. Thereafter, again vide letter dated 18.07.2024, the petitioner sought 2 more weeks time for filing the reply. Under these circumstances, on 08.08.2024, the impugned order came to be passed against the petitioner. In the said impugned order, the respondent had captured with regard to the time sought by the petitioner for filing the reply. In terms of Section 75(4) of the Act, if the respondent are intend to pass any order against an Assessee, they are supposed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing prior to the passing of final assessment order. In the present case, though the time was granted to the petitioner for filing the reply, the impugned order came to be passed without any intimation with regard to the provision of personal hearing opportunity, which is contrary to the terms of Section 75(4) of the Act. In such case, it is crystal clear that the impugned order came to be passed in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The impugned order dated 08.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to order dated 08.08.2024 on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in Real estate activities and a registered assessee under the Goods and Services Act, challenged the order dated 08.08.2024 issued by the Respondent. The petitioner alleged that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Respondent had issued various notices, including a Show Cause Notice and an ASMT-10 notice, to which the petitioner had replied. However, the impugned order was passed without considering the replies submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the order was unjust as it did not provide a chance for a personal hearing. The Respondent argued that since the replies filed by the petitioner were unsatisfactory, a subsequent Show Cause Notice was issued, but the petitioner failed to respond, leading to the impugned order. The Respondent maintained that the petitioner could appeal the order before the Appellate authority if aggrieved.The Court noted that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, contrary to Section 75(4) of the Act. Despite granting time for filing replies, the order was issued without intimating the provision of a personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 08.08.2024 and remanded the matter to the Respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed the petitioner to file their reply/objection along with required documents within three weeks. Upon receipt of the reply, the Respondent was instructed to issue a clear notice for a personal hearing within 14 days and pass appropriate orders expeditiously after hearing the petitioner.In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, and no costs were imposed. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed in light of the judgment.