GST Demand Order Quashed for Denying Opportunity of personal Hearing

By | January 24, 2025

 GST Demand Order Quashed for Denying Opportunity of personal Hearing

Summary in Key Points:

  • Issue: Whether a GST demand order is valid when the assessee is denied an opportunity for a personal hearing, despite it being a mandatory requirement under the law.
  • Facts: The assessee challenged a demand order passed without granting them a personal hearing. The show cause notice had a “N.A.” (Not Applicable) remark in the personal hearing column, and the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the order without offering a hearing.
  • Decision: The High Court quashed the demand order, holding that denying the assessee an opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the order unsustainable.

Decision:

The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the impugned demand order. The court emphasized the following:

  • Mandatory Hearing: The court reiterated that affording an opportunity of hearing is a mandatory requirement under the GST law, especially when an adverse decision is contemplated against the assessee.
  • Violation of Natural Justice: By denying the assessee a personal hearing, the adjudicating authority violated the principles of natural justice, which mandates that no one should be condemned unheard.
  • Unsustainable Order: The court held that the demand order passed without granting a hearing cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
  • Remand for Fresh Order: The matter was remanded back to the concerned authority with directions to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Important Note: This case reinforces the crucial importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in GST proceedings. Providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee is a non-negotiable requirement, and any order passed without granting such a hearing is liable to be quashed. This decision serves as a strong reminder to tax authorities to ensure procedural fairness and transparency in their actions, upholding the fundamental rights of taxpayers.

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Shailesh Kumar Jaiswal
v.
Joint Commissioner of State Tax
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.
WPA No.27582 of 2024
DECEMBER  4, 2024
Anil Kumar DugarRajarshi ChatterjeeMrs. Suman SahaniSk. Ferozuddin Ahmed and Rituraj Chakraborty for the Petitioner. A. RayMd. T.M. SiddiquiT. ChakrabortyS. Shaw and S. Sanyal for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4 issued a summary of show cause notice in FORM GST DRC-01 for the Financial Year 2022-2023. The said show cause notice was issued with a note “N.A.” in personal hearing column and no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner though it is mandatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before concluding adjudication but to the dismay of the petitioner, without granting any opportunity of hearing, the adjudicating authority passed the adjudication order on 29th August, 2023.
2. Learned Counsel further relies on a judgment of the Division Bench of our High Court being “Goutam Bhowmik v. State of West Bengal reported inwherein it has been categorically stated:
“9. Thus, as per provisions of sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, when the proper officer contemplated a decision against the petitioner/assessee, then it was mandatory for him to afford an opportunity of hearing. From the perusal of the show cause notice dated 15.01.2021, it is evident that the proper officer has declined to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner inasmuch as it has not communicated any date, time and venue of hearing.
10. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in “Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner of Commercial-tax, reported in (Allahabad)”, on similar set of facts, has held as under:-

“7. In the table below the aforementioned lines, date, time and venue of personal hearing has not been mentioned. Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017 provides that opportunity of personal 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.

8. Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017 reads as under:-

“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.”

9. From perusal of Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017 it is evident that opportunity of hearing has to be granted by authorities under the Act, 2017 where either a request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty for opportunity of hearing or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Thus, where an adverse decision is contemplated against the person, such a person even need not to request for opportunity of personal hearing and it is mandatory for the authority concerned to afford opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order adverse to such person.”

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the provisions of Section 73 read with Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, this Court is of the view that proper officer is bound to afford an opportunity of hearing, where either a request in writing is received by him from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. To afford opportunity of hearing is a statutory mandate which cannot be violated by proper officer and in the event such of violation, the order passed by the proper officer cannot be sustained. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29th August, 2023 passed by the proper officer for the period 2022-2023 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned authority to pass an order afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. The writ petition being WPA 27582 of 2024 is disposed of.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com