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>Court Overturns Orders for Lack of Hearing, Cites Section 75(4) GST Act; New Order to Be Issued with Hearing.</h1> <h3>M/s Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation Of India Thru. Dy. Director General Anupam Swaroop Lko. Versus Addl. Commissioner Grade Ii Apeal State Tax Lko. And 2 Others</h3> The HC quashed two orders against the petitioner, one issued under Section 73 of the GST Act and another dismissing the appeal due to a limitation period ... Violation of principles of natural justice - requirement to provide opportunity of hearing - Time limitation for filing appeal - appeal preferred by the petitioner dismissed as being beyond limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue with regard to non grant of hearing was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. ATLAS CYCLES HARYANA LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [2024 (2) TMI 942 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and held that the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act are mandatory. Conclusion - Without going to the arguments with regard to limitation and considering the submissions on the ground of non-grant of opportunity of hearing, the petition is allowed. In the case before the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., the petitioner challenged two orders: one dated 09.12.2023 issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, and another dated 22.10.2024 dismissing the petitioner's appeal as being beyond the limitation period. The petitioner argued that the order from 09.12.2023 was issued beyond the limitation period set by Section 73(10) of the GST Act and that no opportunity for a hearing was provided, which is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The court referenced a prior decision in M/S Atlas Cycles Haryana Limited v. State of U.P., where it was held that the provisions of Section 75(4) are mandatory. The court, focusing on the lack of a hearing, allowed the petition and quashed both orders. The respondent is directed to issue a fresh order in compliance with the law, ensuring the petitioner is granted a hearing. The petitioner retains the right to address the limitation issue before the Assessing Authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
