Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1180 - HC - GSTValidity of order for levy of penalty - Principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing provided or not - assessment orders challenged on the only ground that the personal hearing, which is mandated under Section 75 (4) of the Act had not been given to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Under Sub Section 4 of Section 75, it has been mandated that an opportunity of being heard shall be granted, where, if a request is received in writing from a person chargeable with tax or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. In order to meet out this mandatory requirements, whether such an opportunity was given to the petitioner by the respondent is the only question to be answered. As requested by the petitioner, a further time of 15 days was given to the petitioner and a notice was issued to the petitioner from the respondent office on 15.12.2020 inviting him to file objection on or before 29.12.2020 and a personal hearing was also provided to him on 29.12.2020 - even this opportunity was not utilised as he did not appear and file any objection till 29.12.2020. However, one day later, that is, on 30.12.2020, the petitioner appeared and filed objection, where he was given such opportunity of hearing, that was utilised by him and thereafter, the respondent seems to have proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order. The provision, that is, Section 75(4) of the Act, has mandated that, only an opportunity of hearing, that means one opportunity shall be given mandatorily to the Assessee for personal hearing - Such one opportunity had been given, and ultimately, the third opportunity also had been given to him on 30.12.2020, where he was permitted to file objection or reply and personal hearing was also given to him was utilised. This case cannot fall under the category of no opportunity of personal hearing was given, and hence this Court feel that, it cannot be treated that the respondent has violated the mandatory provisions contained in Section 75(4) of the Act - Petition dismissed.
|