TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder shall govern disposal of both the writ petitions viz., W.P. No. 15923/2023 and W.P. No. 15926/2023. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid petitions, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order 2. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. No. 15923/2023 are taken. 3. The brief facts of the case are that:- (I) The instant Writ Petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging the summary of order in form GST DRC-07 issued in consequence of Assessment order dated 26/07/2022 passed under section 73(1) of Madhya Pradesh Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "MPGST") passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt or suppression of facts. (9) The proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and a penalty equivalent to ten per cent of tax or ten thousand rupees, whichever is higher, due from such person and issue an order. (III) An examination of the above shows that at the foremost, as per the sub-section (9) of Section 73 of the Act, 2017 no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner to put the submissions on record which can be verified by the FORM DRC-01 issued to the petitioner on 10/06/2022 (IV) Further, Section 75(4) of the CGST Act/MPGST Act provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the Assessee where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nn.com 345 (Allahabad). (VII) That, aggrieved by the impugned actions of the Respondents and left with no other alternate and efficacious remedy, the Petitioner is compelled to knock the doors of this Court on following facts and grounds, in the interest of justice and fair treatment. The petitioner is constrained to seek shelter of this Court as the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is in violation to the principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition is being filed before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a plain reading of Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the Act makes it clear that providing opportunity of hearing is a mandatory requirement. The said requirement needs to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s about opportunity of 'personal hearing'. On the contrary, it talk about only 'opportunity of hearing'. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued as prescribed in form DRC-01, the petitioner was required to opt for 'personal hearing' which was admittedly not opted and in that event, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents. He placed further reliance in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Jesus Sales Corporation reported in (1996) 4 SCC 69, wherein it is observed that:- "It shall not be out of place to mention that sub-section (2) of Section 4-M provides specifically that appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard if he so desires before final order is passed on his appeal. That requirement accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person." (Emphasis supplied) 8. A plain reading of sub-section 4 of Section 75 of the Act makes it crystal clear that "opportunity of hearing" must be granted in two situations viz (a) where a request in specific is received in writing from the person chargeable; (b) where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. 9. This is trite that when language of statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of its consequences. (See Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 711). 10. The language employed in sub-section 4 of Sec....