The Madras High Court observed that personal hearing is mandatory under Section 75 (4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, even if otherwise opted for.
The issue to be decided was whether the contention that the absence of a personal hearing opportunity before passing the order constitutes a violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, or not.
Raghavan Ramabadran, representing the petitioner, argued that the Show Cause Notice, issued on 26.09.2023, directed objections within 30 days but set a personal hearing for 12.10.2023, prior to the stipulated time frame. The petitioner responded on 20.10.2023, requesting a hearing before any adverse order. Citing Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the counsel emphasized that the petitioner’s right to a personal hearing was disregarded, rendering the impugned order a violation of natural justice.
C. Harsha Raj, for the respondents, pointed out that on Page 68 of the records, under “Option for personal hearing,” the petitioner indicated “No.” He emphasized a paragraph in the reply where the petitioner offered continued cooperation, expressed readiness for further clarification, and requested an opportunity for representation with verbal or documentary evidence. The learned Additional Government Pleader argued that, even if the petitioner opted for a personal hearing, the assessing officer deemed it unnecessary, justifying the assessment order without interference.
The petitioner’s counsel presented a screenshot of the portal, asserting that the petitioner selected “Yes” in the “option for personal hearing” column. However, the printed copy of the reply to the show cause notice at page 68, seemingly indicating “No” under the same option.
The petitioner’s explicit request was for an opportunity of personal hearing in case of any adverse order. The counsel urged the court to overturn the impugned order and instruct the respondents to reevaluate with a personal hearing opportunity.
The petitioner’s counsel requested a personal hearing in their show cause notice response, explicitly requesting a personal hearing for any adverse order. The court examined a portal screenshot showing “Yes” for personal hearing, in contrast to the downloaded “No.” Despite the hearing scheduled for 12.10.2023, after the petitioner’s reply deadline of 20.10.2023, respondent’s counsel failed to provide the mandatory personal hearing opportunity, violating Section 75(4) of the Act. The court insists on upholding the petitioner’s right.
Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy observed remitted the matter to the relevant authority for reconsideration, emphasizing a detailed order in line with the law, after considering the reply and providing the petitioner with a personal hearing opportunity. The court agreed to the suggested personal hearing date of 12.12.2023 or any other date set by the respondents, communicated in writing to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
