TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. Mr. Sahbaj Akthar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III. For Resp. No.6 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Nisith Kumar Sahani, Advocate. JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions involve identical facts and the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner-firm has approached this Court for quashing of the adjudication order including summary of demand passed by adjudicating authority i.e. 5th Respondent, wherein adjudication orders have been passed under Section 74 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as 'JGST Act, 2017' for short] without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner which is in utter def....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest and penalty upon the petitioner. 5. The facts of the present writ application are almost identical to facts of W.P.(T) No. 6027 of 2024. Petitioner-firm for the period 2023-24, purchased goods from the 6threspondent and duly discharged the tax liability through banking Channel and on the strength of tax invoices, eway bills, lorry receipts etc. availed Input Tax Credit of Rs. 7,35,097.20/-. 6. Initially, Input Tax Credit of the petitioner was blocked by the 5thRespondentunder Rule 86A (1) (a) (i) of Jharkhand Goods and Services Rules, 2017 and, thereafter, the 5thRespondentissued show cause notice dated 04.04.2024to the petitioner under Section 74 (1) of JGST Act, 2017, directing to show cause as to why Input Tax Credit availed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision dated 18.04.2022 of this Court passed in the case of M/s. Godavari Commodities Limited v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(T) No. 3908 of 2020] and it was submitted that this Court, while interpreting provisions of Sections 75 (4) and 75 (5) of JGST Act, 2017 clearly held that sufficient opportunity of personal hearing is required to be granted before passing an adjudication order, but, despite said authoritative pronouncement of this Court, adjudication orders have been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-State defended the adjudication orders by contending, inter alia, that prior to issuance of show cause notice, an inspection was made in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing: PROVIDED that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings." 22. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 75 (4) and 75 (5) would reveal as under:- (i) Opportunity of hearing' shall be granted on request. (ii) Opportunity of hearing shall be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated. (iv) If sufficient cause is shown, the proper officer can adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing. (v) However, no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings, huge revenue of the State is otherwise lost which could have been protected, if due procedure is followed while passing adjudication orders. 16. The facts pertaining to W.P.(T) No. 6027 of 2024 clearly reveal that show cause notice was issued on 05.06.2024 having date of compliance as 04.07.2024, but, from order-sheet, it appears that alleged date of compliance was noted as 05.07.2024 and, on the first date of compliance, ex-parte order was passed against petitioner. 17. Likewise, facts of W.P.(T) No. 6028 of 2024 would reveal that although show cause notice was issued on 04.04.2024 fixing date of compliance on 03.05.2024, but, on 03.05.2024, no proceedings were held and first proceeding was held on 05.06.2024 and, on the sa....