TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
- Whether the impugned order of determination passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) is valid, considering the petitioner's request for cross-examination of a departmental officer and the grant of opportunity of hearing.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by passing the order without granting a fresh opportunity of hearing after the interim stay granted by the Court expired.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the 4th respondent, an officer of the Public Works Department, whose statements and information were relied upon in the show cause notice.
- The proper procedural compliance under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act regarding the issuance of opportunity of hearing before passing any adverse order.
- The adequacy and legality of the procedure followed by the tax authorities in concluding the proceedings despite the pendency of the writ petition and the interim stay granted by the Court.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Validity of the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act
The CGST Act, 2017, under Section 73, empowers tax authorities to determine tax not paid or short paid, along with interest and penalty. The petitioner challenged Ext.P11 order determining liability of Rs.30,76,070/- imposed under Section 73. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without granting a proper opportunity of hearing and without allowing cross-examination of relevant departmental officers.
The Court noted that the petitioner had initially sought an opportunity to cross-examine the 4th respondent and requested copies of documents relied upon in the show cause notice. The petitioner's request was made in the reply to the show cause notice (Ext.P10). The respondents denied the necessity for cross-examination and claimed that an opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 06.06.2024, which the petitioner did not avail. However, the Court found no evidence that such a hearing notice was served on the petitioner.
The Court observed that the writ petition was admitted and interim stay granted on 21.06.2024, which was extended multiple times but expired on 30.08.2024. Despite the stay, the impugned order was passed on 31.08.2024. The Court held that the tax authorities should have awaited disposal of the writ petition or at least granted a fresh opportunity of hearing after the stay expired. The failure to do so violated the mandatory procedural safeguards under the CGST Act and principles of natural justice.
Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice and procedural safeguards under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act
Section 75(4) mandates that before passing any adverse order, the taxpayer must be granted an opportunity of hearing. The Court emphasized that even if the interim stay granted by the Court expired, the authorities were under a legal obligation to issue a fresh notice granting an opportunity of hearing before passing the order.
The Court found no material to show that the petitioner was served with any such fresh notice after the stay expired. Consequently, the passing of Ext.P11 order without such notice was held to be in violation of natural justice. The Court reiterated that the grant of hearing is a fundamental procedural requirement and cannot be bypassed.
Issue 3: Necessity and entitlement to cross-examination of the 4th respondent
The petitioner contended that the information collected by the tax authorities from the 4th respondent, an officer of the Public Works Department, was prejudicial and that the petitioner should be allowed to cross-examine him to test the veracity and correctness of such information. The Court analyzed the nature of the contentions raised by the petitioner, which were intricately connected with the information provided by the 4th respondent.
The Court held that considering the complexity and nature of the allegations, an opportunity for cross-examination was necessary to ensure a fair and just adjudication. The Court observed that denying such an opportunity would prejudice the petitioner's right to a fair hearing.
Issue 4: Adequacy and legality of procedure followed by tax authorities in concluding proceedings
The Court scrutinized the conduct of the tax authorities in proceeding with the final order immediately after the interim stay expired, without awaiting the writ petition's disposal or granting a fresh hearing opportunity. The Court found this approach to be procedurally flawed and contrary to the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate.
The Court noted that the petitioner was entitled to copies of documents relied upon, and if requested, the authorities must provide them as per law. It also directed that the petitioner must participate in the proceedings without seeking further adjournments to avoid undue delay.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
- "Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted to the tax payer, if any adverse orders are issued."
- "The first respondent ought to have issued a fresh notice granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing Ext.P11 order and that having not been done, I am of the view that the impugned order Ext.P11 is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice."
- "Considering the nature of contentions raised in the reply notice to the intimation of discrepancy as well as to the show cause notice under Section 73, I am of the view that the opportunity of cross-examination of the 4th respondent was necessary."
- The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the tax authorities to pass fresh orders after granting a proper opportunity of hearing and allowing cross-examination of the 4th respondent.
- The Court excluded the period during which the writ petition was stayed from the limitation period for passing fresh orders and mandated that the petitioner must participate without seeking further adjournments.
TaxTMI 
