TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2023 for the period 2018-19, 2019-20 respectively passed by the respondent No. 3 under Section 74 (9) of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (hereinafter referred for short "the MPGST Act") on the ground that the impugned order is cryptic, non-speaking, non-reasoned and laconic passed without application of mind and also in gross violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners even after request in writing have not been afforded an opportunity of mandatory personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the MPGST Act before passing the impugned order. The petitioner prays for following reliefs:- "7.1 Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned assessment order (DRC-07) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r under Section 67 of the MPGST Act by anti-evasion bureau wing of respondent department on 10.01.2020 and report under Section 67(2) was prepared. The report was forwarded to respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner of State tax, Indore Circle - 11 Division II, who is the jurisdictional authority to adjudicate the cases of petitioner pertaining to GST Act. The respondent No. 3 acting upon the report initiated the impugned proceedings under Section 74 of the MPGST Act. On the basis of two reports, one by search wing and another by Chartered Engineer, respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings under Section 74 of the MPGST Act and served intimation (DRC-01A) dated 05.05.2022 under Section 74(5) of the MPGST Act r/w Rule 142 (1A) of the Act throug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....com 702 (M.P.), submits that impugned order DRC-07 dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No. 3 is bad in law as has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing as provided under Section 75(4) of the MPGST Act, therefore, prays for quashing the aforesaid order filed against the petitioners and grant of reliefs as claimed in petition. 04. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) opposed the prayer on the ground that no exception can be taken to the impugned order as it has been passed following the due procedure as provided under the law and prays for dismissal of the petitions. 05. Heard and considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 06. Section 75(4) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e administrative authority had acted fairly, impartially and reasonably. The doctrine of audi alteramn partem is thus aimed at striking at arbitrariness and want of fair play. Judicial pronouncements on the subject have, therefore recognised that the demands of natural justice may be different in different situations depending upon not only the facts and circumstances of each case but also on the powers and composition of the Tribunal and the rules and regulations under which it functions. A court examining a complaint based on violation of rules of natural justice is entitled to see whether the aggrieved party had indeed suffered any prejudice on account of such violation. To that extent there has been a shift from the earlier thought that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....produced as under:- "11. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to quote Section 75 (4) of GST Act which reads as under:- "(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." The relevant portion of DRC-01 is reproduced for ready reference:- "Details of personal hearing etc ... Sl. No. Description Particulars 1 Section under which show cause notice/statement is issued 73 2 Date by which reply has to be submitted 07/11/2022 3 Date of personal hearing NA 4 Time of personal hearing NA 5 Venue whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioners that even law makers while prescribing the statutory form has visualized different stages for the purpose of "personal hearing". The one stage is when the reply is submitted and the other stage is date, venue and time of the personal hearing. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of learned Government Advocate that "opportunity of hearing" does not include the opportunity of "personal hearing". 16. In the instant case whether or not the petitioners have specifically asked for personal hearing, fact remains that the adverse decision was contemplated against the petitioners. In that event, it was obligatory and mandatory on the part of respondents to provide the petitioners opportunity of personal....