2025 (6) TMI 1240 - HC - GST

Challenge to order passed u/s 73 of the CGST /WBGST Act 2017 - tax period April 2020 to March 2021 - proper officer had decided the SCN ex parte without acceding to the petitioner s request for adjournment and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Prima facie it would transpire that the aforesaid order has been passed de hors the provisions contained in Section 75(5) of the said Act. Admittedly the show cause notice contemplates passing of an adverse order and having regard thereto an opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been granted prior to taking a decision. In the instant case the petitioner had sought for an adjournment of 20 days. The proper officer without considering the same had passed an order. The aforesaid is also de hors the provisions contained in Section 75(5) of the said Act which enables the petitioner to seek for an adjournment upon showing sufficient cause. The aforesaid order which is contrary to the statute also appears to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The same is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the proper officer for fresh adjudication on merits upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

The Calcutta High Court, in a writ petition challenging an order under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021, held that the order dated 20th January 2025 was passed in violation of Section 75(5) of the Act and principles of natural justice. The petitioner had requested a 20-day adjournment and an opportunity for personal hearing, which were denied, resulting in an ex parte order. The Court emphasized that "an opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been granted prior to taking a decision" and that the proper officer must consider adjournment requests upon showing sufficient cause. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits with an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was permitted to file a response within 10 days, with all recovery proceedings quashed and any amounts recovered to be recredited. The proper officer was directed to conclude proceedings within four weeks from the response filing or order communication, whichever is later. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.