TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Petitioner denied mandatory hearings under CGST Act; appeal filing extended with pre-deposit till August 31, 2025</h1> The HC found that the petitioner was denied the mandatory three personal hearings under the CGST Act and was unaware of the Show Cause Notice and impugned ... Violation of principles of natural justice - three personal hearings as required, not granted to the Petitioner in terms of the Central Goods and Services Act - Petitioner was unaware either of the Show Cause Notice or the impugned order passed - HELD THAT:- This Court notes that, for whatever reasons, the Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to file a reply or even appear for the hearing, yet a demand to the tune of Rs. 88,474/- has been raised against the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, as also exercising the writ jurisdiction, the Court deems it appropriate to extend the time for filing the appeal till 31st August, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit - If the appeal is filed by 31st August, 2025, it shall not be dismissed being barred by limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits. In the appeal, the Petitioner may place its stand before the Appellate Authority, which shall be considered on its own merits. Petition disposed off. ISSUES: Whether the petitioner was entitled to personal hearings before passing the assessment order under Section 73 of the CGST Act.Whether the failure to grant personal hearings violates principles of natural justice and warrants setting aside the impugned order.Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal against the assessment order can be extended due to lack of knowledge of the order.Whether the appellate authority is obliged to consider the appeal on merits if filed within the extended limitation period. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that the petitioner was not granted the opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by the CGST Act, which is a violation of the procedural requirements.The impugned order passed without granting personal hearings is subject to challenge, and the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to present its case.The Court exercised writ jurisdiction to extend the limitation period for filing the appeal till 31st August, 2025, acknowledging that the petitioner was unaware of the order and thus the limitation period had expired.The appeal filed within the extended period 'shall not be dismissed being barred by limitation' and must be adjudicated on merits, allowing the petitioner to place its stand before the Appellate Authority. RATIONALE: The Court applied the procedural safeguards under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which require issuance of a Show Cause Notice and grant of personal hearings before passing an assessment order.The principle of natural justice mandates that a party must be given an opportunity to be heard before adverse orders are passed against it.The Court recognized the petitioner's lack of knowledge of the impugned order due to reliance on a GST consultant and the absence of personal hearings, justifying extension of limitation under writ jurisdiction.No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the decision follows established principles regarding procedural fairness and limitation extensions in tax proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
