2024 (2) TMI 1289 - HC - GST

Levy of tax - inadvertent error has crept in the proceedings - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Since rules of natural justice are mandatory to the extent they bind the respondent authority to deal with the objection of the petitioner and if required grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before adverse order is passed no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage. The order dated 5.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 75(4) of UP GST Act, 2017

The petitioner challenged the order dated 5.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 75(4) of the UP GST Act, 2017, imposing tax and interest. The petitioner contended that despite submitting written replies to the show-cause notice, the impugned order did not reflect this, leading to a false observation that no reply was filed. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of rules of natural justice, requiring the respondent authority to address the petitioner's objections and provide a hearing before passing an adverse order.

The court noted that the petitioner had submitted replies to the show-cause notice, as evidenced by the acknowledgment issued through the online portal and the filing date of 21.11.2023. However, the impugned order failed to consider these submissions, resulting in an erroneous observation that no reply was filed. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, which necessitate the respondent authority to address the petitioner's objections and grant a hearing before making a decision.

The court, after considering the arguments presented, set aside the order dated 5.12.2023 and remitted the matter to respondent No.2 for issuing a fresh reasoned and speaking order. Emphasizing the significance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the court concluded that no purpose would be served by prolonging the writ petition or seeking a counter affidavit at that stage. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to re-examine the matter after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.