GST adjudication order quashed for violating natural justice principles despite multiple hearings held

The HC quashed an order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Adjudication), Central GST Commissionerate, Ghaziabad for violating principles of natural justice. Despite multiple hearings held between February and July 2024, the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity after document supply, and the court's previous directions dated 30.05.2024 were not followed. The finding regarding alleged fraud was deemed ipse dixit without proper consideration. The matter was remanded back to the Joint Commissioner with directions to provide proper hearing opportunity, follow previous court directions, and pass a fresh order after appropriately dealing with the fraud allegations. The petition was allowed by way of remand.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order without providing further opportunity to the petitioner after supplying documents.
2. Failure to follow the directions of the Court in a previous writ petition regarding confrontation with documents and witnesses.
3. Allegations of fraud against the petitioner and the need for proper investigation.
4. Preliminary objection raised regarding the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order creating a demand under the CGST Act, 2017 and related statutes. The petitioner contended that despite being supplied documents, no further opportunity was provided before passing the impugned order, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner emphasized the need for a fair hearing post-document supply to address the allegations adequately.

2. The Court noted that in a previous writ petition, directions were issued for the petitioner to be confronted with all relevant documents and oral statements, with the right to cross-examine witnesses. However, the authority failed to fix a further hearing date after document supply and passed the impugned order within 15 days, disregarding the Court's directives. This failure to follow the Court's directions was a crucial aspect leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

3. The petitioner raised concerns about the lack of investigation by the respondents into the alleged fraud and pointed out that the documents supplied indicated potential misuse of the petitioner's bank account by someone else. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's denial of involvement in the fraudulent transactions but found that the order lacked a specific determination regarding the petitioner's liability. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing the fraud allegations appropriately through a thorough investigation.

4. The respondents argued for the dismissal of the writ petition based on the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Court held that since the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity post-document supply, the plea of alternative remedy did not bar the petitioner from pursuing the writ petition. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing in compliance with the Court's previous directions.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues raised in the judgment, including the violation of natural justice, failure to follow Court directives, the need for investigation into fraud allegations, and the consideration of alternative remedies.

---