9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1555 - HC - GSTChallenge to order u/s 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - absence of affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It transpires from the record neither the adjudicating authority issued any further notice to the petitioner to show cause or to participate in the oral hearing nor he granted any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. In view of the facts noted before any adverse order passed in an adjudication proceeding personal hearing must be offered to the noticee. If the noticee chooses to waive that right occasion may arise with the adjudicating authority (in those facts) to proceed to deal with the case on merits ex-parte. Also another situation may exist where even after grant of such opportunity of personal hearing the noticee fails to avail the same. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been passed in gross violation of fundamental principles of natural justice. The self imposed bar of alternative remedy cannot be applied in such facts. If applied it would be of no real use. In fact it would be counter productive to the interest of justice. Here it may be noted the appeal authority does not have the authority to remand the proceedings. Conclusion - i) The mandatory nature of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 affirmed before passing any adverse order. ii) Denial of personal hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice rendering the order void. iii) The remedy of appeal under Section 107 cannot be denied on procedural grounds when fundamental rights are infringed. iv) Self-imposed bars of alternative remedy do not apply where procedural safeguards are ignored. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax Department Sikandrabad Bulandshahar to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition disposed off by way of remand.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Availability of Remedy of Appeal under Section 107 of the Act Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provides for the remedy of appeal against orders passed under the Act. Section 75(4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing must be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated. Procedural law under taxing statutes requires that before any assessment or adjudication order is passed, the assessee must be given an opportunity of personal hearing. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Additional Chief Standing Counsel initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of the remedy of appeal under Section 107. However, the petitioner's counsel countered this objection relying on the violation of Section 75(4), emphasizing the mandatory nature of personal hearing before passing an adverse order. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the impugned order was passed without affording any personal hearing to the petitioner, which is a fundamental procedural requirement. This procedural lapse undermines the validity of the order, and thus, the remedy of appeal cannot be denied on such grounds. Conclusions: The Court held that the remedy of appeal under Section 107 is available and cannot be foreclosed by a self-imposed bar when the fundamental procedural safeguard of personal hearing has been denied. Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice due to Denial of Personal Hearing Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 75(4) of the Act explicitly requires that an opportunity of hearing be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated. It is a settled principle of natural justice that no order adversely affecting a person should be passed without affording him an opportunity to be heard. This principle is fundamental in tax adjudication proceedings. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the adjudicating authority neither issued any further notice to the petitioner to show cause nor granted any opportunity of personal hearing. Such conduct was described as "strange and wholly unacceptable," especially since the substantive law had changed but the procedural safeguards were not observed. The Court noted that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh, had issued an Office Memorandum highlighting procedural irregularities such as non-mentioning of dates and times for personal hearings, improper sequencing of dates for replies and hearings, and non-commensurate dates of passing orders vis-`a-vis personal hearings. This memorandum underscored systemic lapses in adherence to procedural requirements. Key evidence and findings: The record showed no notice or opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner before the passing of the impugned order. The Office Memo No. 1406 dated 12.11.2024 was relied upon to demonstrate that such lapses were not isolated but part of a wider pattern requiring remedial action. Application of law to facts: The Court emphasized that before passing any adverse order in adjudication proceedings, personal hearing must be offered. If the noticee waives this right or fails to avail it after it is granted, the authority may proceed ex-parte. However, denial of this opportunity altogether is impermissible. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's attempt to rely on the absence of appeal remedy and procedural changes was rejected. The Court underscored that procedural safeguards cannot be diluted or ignored merely because substantive law has evolved. Conclusions: The impugned order was held to be passed in gross violation of natural justice principles and procedural law, rendering it unsustainable. Issue 3: Applicability of Self-Imposed Bar of Alternative Remedy Relevant legal framework and precedents: Generally, courts enforce the principle that alternative remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. However, this principle is subject to exceptions, particularly where fundamental rights or principles of natural justice are violated. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court declined to apply the self-imposed bar of alternative remedy because doing so would be counterproductive to the interest of justice. Since the appeal authority lacked the power to remand the proceedings and the impugned order was passed without hearing, the petitioner's grievance could not be effectively addressed through appeal. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the procedural irregularity was so fundamental that denying writ relief on the ground of alternative remedy would serve no real purpose. Conclusions: The self-imposed bar of alternative remedy was held inapplicable in the present facts. Issue 4: Appropriate Remedial Measures and Directions Relevant legal framework and precedents: Courts have inherent power to issue directions to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and procedural laws, including disciplinary action against erring officials. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing. The Court also noted the possibility of imposing heavy costs for the conduct of the respondent but refrained based on assurances given. The Court further directed the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh, to undertake remedial measures including disciplinary proceedings against officials who violate fundamental principles of natural justice without justifiable reason. Application of law to facts: The directions aim to prevent recurrence of such procedural lapses and safeguard the rights of taxpayers in future adjudication proceedings. Conclusions: The Court mandated strict adherence to procedural safeguards and accountability of officials to uphold the rule of law in tax adjudication. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
Core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue were:
|
