2024 (11) TMI 599 - HC - GST

Taxpayer Wins Challenge Against Assessment Order, Secures Right to Personal Hearing Under Section 75(4) of GST Act

Tvl. Signet Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Murali Versus The State Tax officer Arisipalayam Circle, Salem, Tamil Nadu

Tvl. Signet Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Murali Versus The State Tax officer Arisipalayam Circle, Salem, Tamil Nadu - ... Issues:Opportunity of personal hearing before passing assessment order.Analysis:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to challenge the assessment order dated 26.04.2024 issued by the respondent without providing an opportunity of personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the statutory provision. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, admitted the failure to provide a personal hearing and agreed for the matter to be remanded for reconsideration. After hearing both parties, the Court observed that no personal hearing was indeed provided to the petitioner before passing the assessment order, contrary to the mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act.The Court noted that Section 75(4) of the GST Act mandates the provision of a personal hearing to the Assessee before passing an adverse order. Despite the confirmation of demand against the petitioner, the respondent failed to adhere to this requirement. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the statutory provision of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. As a result, the Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for reevaluation.In its order, the Court directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to file any additional reply within two weeks. Subsequently, the respondent was instructed to issue a clear notice, fixing a date for personal hearing, and then pass appropriate orders after considering the additional reply and hearing the petitioner. Additionally, since the impugned order was set aside, the Court ordered the lifting of the attachment on the petitioner's bank account and directed the concerned bank to defreeze the cash credit account upon the production of a copy of the order. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with no order as to costs and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.