https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440828 Delhi HC set aside an order passed by GST authorities against a trader for alleged fraudulent transactions involving non-existent entities. The court found clear violation of natural justice principles as petitioner was denied personal hearing before the adverse order, despite statutory requirements under CGST Act Sections 75(4) and 75(5). Authorities incorrectly considered telephonic conversation and representative's visit as adequate hearing. The adjudicating officer appeared rushed to conclude proceedings before financial year-end, passing order immediately after reply filing. Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 despite availability of alternate remedy, remanded matter for fresh adjudication with proper hearing opportunity, and imposed Rs.5,000 costs on Commissioner for improper conduct and wasting judicial time. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2025 15:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440828 Delhi HC set aside an order passed by GST authorities against a trader for alleged fraudulent transactions involving non-existent entities. The court found clear violation of natural justice principles as petitioner was denied personal hearing before the adverse order, despite statutory requirements under CGST Act Sections 75(4) and 75(5). Authorities incorrectly considered telephonic conversation and representative's visit as adequate hearing. The adjudicating officer appeared rushed to conclude proceedings before financial year-end, passing order immediately after reply filing. Court exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 despite availability of alternate remedy, remanded matter for fresh adjudication with proper hearing opportunity, and imposed Rs.5,000 costs on Commissioner for improper conduct and wasting judicial time. Case-Laws GST Mon, 24 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440828