2025 (6) TMI 1653 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order has been passed on the ground that the reply is not acceptable and the defect is confirmed - HELD THAT - As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner the impugned orders suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. Further the impugned orders has been passed against the provisions contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the TNGST Act inasmuch as in terms of Section 75 (4) of the TNGST Act an opportunity of hearing has to be granted where any adverse decision is contemplated against taxpayer (petitioner in this case). The impugned orders passed by the respondent dated 12.03.2025 are set aside - the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in these Writ Petitions are:

• Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing before the respondent passed the impugned orders dated 12.03.2025 confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notices under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act);
• Whether the failure to provide personal hearing before passing adverse orders violates the principles of natural justice;
• Whether the impugned orders conform to the statutory requirements under Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before adverse decisions are taken;
• Whether the petitioner's request for extension of time to file a detailed reply and for personal hearing was duly considered by the respondent;
• The appropriate remedy and course of action in the event of procedural lapses in passing the impugned orders.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Personal Hearing Before Passing Adverse Orders

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act mandates that before passing any order imposing tax or penalty or confirming demand, the authority shall provide the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. This provision embodies the principle of audi alteram partem, a cornerstone of natural justice, requiring that no one should be condemned unheard.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice but was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before the impugned orders were passed. The respondent admitted that no personal hearing was provided after the reply was filed. The Court emphasized that where an adverse decision is contemplated, Section 75(4) requires the authority to grant an opportunity of personal hearing.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had issued a communication dated 12.08.2024 requesting an extension of time to file a detailed reply and an opportunity for personal hearing, citing multiple GST assessments pending at the PAN India level. The respondent did not accede to this request and proceeded to confirm the proposals without hearing the petitioner.

Application of law to facts: The Court found that the failure to provide personal hearing before confirming the proposals was a breach of the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) and a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner's request for personal hearing was neither considered nor granted, rendering the impugned orders procedurally defective.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent contended that the demand had already been quantified in the show cause notice and implied that personal hearing was not necessary before passing the impugned order. However, the Court rejected this argument, holding that the statutory scheme requires personal hearing before confirming any adverse demand.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to personal hearing before passing the impugned orders and that the failure to provide such opportunity vitiated the orders.

Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, require that a party affected by an adverse order must be given a fair opportunity to present their case. The TNGST Act's Section 75(4) codifies this principle in the GST context.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the impugned orders were passed without hearing the petitioner despite their specific request. This omission was held to be a clear violation of natural justice.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's communication requesting extension and personal hearing was on record. The respondent's failure to respond substantively to this request and the absence of any personal hearing before passing the orders were established facts.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that natural justice is a fundamental requirement in quasi-judicial proceedings such as GST assessments and found the impugned orders unsustainable.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's admission that no personal hearing was provided was significant. The Court noted that the respondent's procedural lapse could not be condoned merely because the demand was quantified earlier.

Conclusions: The Court held that the impugned orders suffer from violation of natural justice and are liable to be set aside on this ground.

Issue 3: Remedy and Directions for Fresh Consideration

Relevant legal framework and precedents: When procedural irregularities are established, the appropriate remedy is often to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The respondent suggested that the impugned orders be treated as show cause notices afresh, allowing the petitioner to file additional replies and documents, and thereafter affording personal hearing before passing any final order. The petitioner agreed to this course.

Key evidence and findings: The Court considered the submissions of both parties and the record, including the petitioner's difficulties due to multiple GST notices and the respondent's willingness to reconsider the matter.

Application of law to facts: The Court found this approach just and equitable, ensuring that the petitioner's rights are protected and the statutory mandate is fulfilled.

Treatment of competing arguments: No serious objection was raised by either party to the proposed remedy. The Court accepted the joint submission as a fair resolution.

Conclusions: The Court set aside the impugned orders dated 12.03.2025, remanded the matters to the respondent for fresh consideration treating the impugned orders as show cause notices, directed the petitioner to file additional replies within six weeks, and mandated the respondent to provide a personal hearing opportunity before passing fresh orders.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"In terms of Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act, an opportunity of hearing has to be granted, where any adverse decision is contemplated against taxpayer."

"The impugned orders suffer not only from violation of principles of natural justice but also against the provisions contemplated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act."

"The impugned orders dated 12.03.2025 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration."

"The petitioner is directed to treat the impugned orders as show cause notices and shall file additional replies along with supportive documents within six weeks."

"The respondent shall issue a 7 clear days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and decide the matters in accordance with law."

Core principles established include the mandatory requirement of personal hearing before confirming any adverse demand under GST law, the inviolability of natural justice principles in quasi-judicial proceedings, and the procedural safeguards embodied in Section 75(4) of the TNGST Act.

The final determination was that the impugned orders were legally unsustainable due to procedural infirmities and were set aside with directions for fresh adjudication in compliance with statutory and natural justice requirements.