TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot given the relied upon documents. In the instant case on 25.02.2020 DRC-01 A (intimation of tax) DRC-02 (Summary of Statement) and intimation of liability under Section 74 (5) of the Act was issued on the same date i.e. 25.02.2020, thereafter, on 04.06.2020 summary of show cause notice in the form of DRC-01 along with show cause notice was issued, fixing the date as 03.07.2020 for filing reply and thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing and without fixing any date for hearing adjudication order has been passed on 06.07.2020 - Here lies the lacuna committed by the respondents in non-compliance of the statutory provisions of the JGST Act and also the settled principles of natural justice. Admittedly; prior to passing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for quashing/setting aside the purported Show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC-02 contained in Reference No. 97 dated 04.06.2020 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 (Annexure 5/2), wherein respondent No.4, at the stage of show cause notice itself, has already pre-judged and pre-decided the entire issue and has even passed order fastening liability towards tax, interest and penalty upon the petitioner. (iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the order passed by Respondent No.4 under Section 74 (9) of the Jharkhand Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as JGST Act for short), as contained in Reference Nos. 145 145/2 dated 06.07.2020 (Annexure-6), wherein respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d authorization contained in INS No. 590 dated 09.07.2019 were not handed over to the petitioner. In the said inspection report it was further mentioned that the petitioner should appear with all relevant documents on 17.07.2019 in the office of respondent No.3. Pursuant thereto the representative of petitioner firm duly appeared before the Respondent-authority and sought time for producing the documents and accordingly, next date for the case was fixed for 30th July, 2019. Though on the next date fixed the petitioner s representative visited the office of respondent No.3 along with requisite documents, but no proceeding was carried out. After a lapse of five months, petitioner was issued summon, where he was directed to appear on 01.02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No.4 under Section 74(9) vide Reference No. 145 145(2) dated 06.07.2020. Consequently, two separate demand notice in form of summary orders contained in form GST DRC-07 for the Financial Year 2017-18 and 2018-19 have been issued. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that the adjudication order and consequential demand notice has been passed/issued against the petitioner without granting any opportunity of hearing and in utter violation of the mandate of Section 74 of JGST Act. 5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner amongst other grounds assailed the impugned adjudication order by submitting that no opportunity of personal hearing has been granted to this petitioner and since the opportunity of personal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein, it appears that admittedly; no opportunity of personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner and he was also not given the relied upon documents. This Court in the case of M/s. Godavari Commodities Ltd.(supra) has laid down the law with regard to opportunity of personal hearing. 9. For better appreciation para 21 and 22 reads as follows:- 21. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 75(4) and 75(5) of the CGST/JGST Act:- 75. General provisions relating to determination of tax (4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e settled principles of natural justice. The issue of reasonable opportunity has been dealt in detail in the case of NKAS Service Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2021-VIL-732-Jhar. Further, in the case of Godavari Commodities Ltd. (supra) the matter has been further clarified about requirement of personal hearing. From the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it transpires that respondents themselves had admitted that few documents were produced by the representative of the petitioner and the time was asked for filing rest of the document. However, no further documents were demanded by the respondent-Authorities and even pursuant to summon issued to the petitioner, no statement of proprietor of the Firm was recorded. Admittedly; prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
