2025 (2) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... SC, CGST & CX, Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Singh, Advocate. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 1. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- "i) The order dated 19.03.2024 and also the summary of order (as contained in Annexure - P 4 series) passed by the respondent no.4 under Section 73 (9) of the Act charging tax, interest and imposing penalty for the Financial Year 2018 - 19 without consideration of reversal of input tax credit of Rs.6.25 crores though admitting the same to be declared in the column of "other reversal head" (Table - 7 - H) and also without consideration of the Circular No. 183/15/2022 - GST dated 27.12.2022 allowing input tax credit on the basis of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hority and without exhausting such remedy he has rushed to this Court. On this score, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out Section 75 (4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is necessary to reproduce Section 75 (4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which is as under:- "75 (4) An opportunity of 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." 3. For the purpose of compliance to sub-section (4) of Section 75 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 the concerned authority was required to hear the petitioner having regard to the fact that adverse order has been passed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 75 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Reading of the aforementioned statutory provision, it is crystal clear that before passing any adverse order an opportunity shall be provided to such person against whom adverse orders are likely to be passed. 6. Perusal of impugned order dated 19.03.2024, it is evident that petitioner has not been heard before passing adverse order insofar as paragraph no. 5.0 is concerned. Even assuming paragraph no. 3.0 of the impugned order is taken into consideration, perusal of paragraph no. 3.0 it is not evident as to whether petitioner has been issued notice particularly in respect of paragraph no. 5.0 of the impugned order. This is evident from paragraph no. 3.0. It is necessary to reproduce par....