GST Adjudication Orders Quashed Due to Procedural Defects, Petitioner Granted Fair Hearing Opportunity Under Section 74(9)

The HC allowed the writ petition challenging GST adjudication orders under Section 74(9). The Court found procedural impropriety in ex-parte orders passed without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, directing the respondent to consider relevant circulars and afford the petitioner a proper hearing.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this writ petition include:

• Whether the adjudication orders issued under Section 74(9) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20, including the summary orders and recovery notices, are liable to be quashed on grounds of procedural impropriety.
• Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned ex-parte orders.
• Whether the failure of the petitioner to respond to the show cause notices was due to bona fide reasons and sufficient cause justifying reconsideration of the matter.
• Whether the impugned orders were passed without due consideration of the relevant Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 issued by the Central Government, thereby vitiating the orders.
• Whether the writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the adjudication orders under Section 74(9) of the GST Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 74(9) of the GST Act empowers the tax authorities to adjudicate cases of tax evasion after issuance of a show cause notice and following due process. The principles of natural justice mandate that the person affected must be given an opportunity to be heard before passing an order adversely affecting his interests. Precedents emphasize that ex-parte orders without hearing the affected party are generally unsustainable unless the party deliberately avoids participation.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner had filed GSTR-3B returns for the relevant periods but did not respond to the show cause notices issued by the respondent. The respondent proceeded to pass adjudication orders ex-parte on the basis of discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A forms. However, the Court observed that the petitioner asserted that the failure to respond was due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances.

Key evidence and findings: The material on record showed that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notices dated 31.01.2023. The impugned orders dated 31.05.2023, 06.01.2024, and recovery notices dated 06.06.2024 were passed without the petitioner's participation. The petitioner contended non-receipt of the show cause notices and reliance on Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST was not considered by the respondent.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that since the petitioner's non-participation was claimed to be for sufficient cause and bona fide reasons, and the orders were passed ex-parte, the principles of natural justice were not complied with. The failure to consider the relevant Circular also vitiated the orders.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner did not exercise due diligence and thus the ex-parte orders were justified. The Court, however, favored a justice-oriented approach, giving weight to the petitioner's explanation and the need for adherence to natural justice.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside for non-compliance with natural justice and non-consideration of relevant Circulars.

Issue 2: Whether the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication

Relevant legal framework and precedents: It is well-established that when procedural irregularities are found in adjudication proceedings, the appropriate remedy is often to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court, adopting a justice-oriented approach, deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondent to reconsider the case afresh. The Court emphasized the need to consider the Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022, which was not taken into account earlier.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's assertion of bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances for non-response, coupled with the absence of any hearing before passing the ex-parte orders, justified a fresh opportunity.

Application of law to facts: The Court ordered that the petitioner should appear before the respondent on a specified date to submit his reply and relevant documents. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and proceed thereafter in accordance with law.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's contention that the petitioner's inaction disentitled him to relief was rejected in favor of ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice.

Conclusions: The Court ordered setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not respond/reply to the show cause notice and the impugned ex-parte orders have been passed without hearing the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit the reply to the show cause notice and participate in the proceedings was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions."

Core principles established include:

• Adjudication orders under Section 74(9) of the GST Act must comply with principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard.
• Ex-parte orders passed without affording an opportunity to the affected party, especially where bona fide reasons exist for non-participation, are liable to be set aside.
• Relevant Circulars and guidelines issued by the Central Government must be considered during adjudication.
• Where procedural irregularity is found, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Final determinations on each issue:

• The impugned adjudication orders, summary orders, and recovery notices under Section 74(9) for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 are quashed.
• The matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and after considering Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022.
• The petitioner is directed to appear and submit a reply to the show cause notices along with relevant documents by the specified date.
• The respondent shall provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing any further orders.
• Failure of the petitioner to appear on the specified date will result in automatic recall of the order and revival of the writ petition without further reference to the Court.

---