TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>False denial of hearing claim rejected where records proved personal hearing and a wrong order date was only clerical error.</h1> A writ petition challenging an appellate GST order on alleged denial of personal hearing was rejected because the record showed the petitioner had in fact ... Violation of Principles of natural justice - false averment that no personal hearing was granted - Clerical error - Exemplary costs. Principles of natural justice - False statement before Court - HELD THAT: - On production of the original file, the Court found that the petitioner had been personally heard by the appellate authority and had signed the proceedings. The discrepancy in the date mentioned in the impugned order was traced to a clerical error, and the portal as well as the original order indicated the correct position. In these circumstances, the assertion in the writ petition that no hearing had been granted and that the order violated principles of natural justice was held to be false. Having found that the petitioner had made a false statement before the Court, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and imposed exemplary costs. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 6] The writ petition was rejected with exemplary costs, the allegation of breach of natural justice having been found to be factually false. Final Conclusion: The Court rejected the writ petition after examining the original record and finding that the petitioner had in fact been granted personal hearing. Since the plea of violation of natural justice was found to be based on a false statement, exemplary costs were imposed. Issues: Whether the writ petition deserved to be rejected for making a false averment that no personal hearing was granted and for challenging the appellate order on an alleged violation of natural justice, when the record showed that the petitioner had in fact been heard and the order date contained only a clerical error.Analysis: The original file and portal record established that the petitioner had been personally heard on 03.11.2025 and had signed the proceedings, and that the impugned order passed under section 107 of the State and Central GST enactments suffered only from a clerical error in recording 30.10.2025 instead of 04.11.2025. The writ petition's central allegation of denial of personal hearing was therefore found to be factually incorrect. The Court also took note of the withdrawal of appearance by counsel after discovering that the petitioner had misled him. In these circumstances, the petition was found to be devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with costs.Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected and exemplary costs were imposed, as no breach of natural justice was made out.Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition founded on a demonstrably false plea of denial of hearing is liable to be rejected, and a mere clerical mistake in the recorded date of an order does not establish a violation of natural justice when the record shows that personal hearing was actually granted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
