TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, by the said Order dated 8th September 2022, a decision adverse to the Petitioner has been passed. In these circumstances, Respondent No. 3 was bound to give a personal hearing to the Petitioner before passing the said Order dated 8th September 2022. This would be irrespective of the fact as to whether the Petitioner had asked for such a personal hearing or not. In the present case, since the said Order dated 8th September 2022, has been passed without giving any personal hearing to the Petitioner, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST/MGST Act. The Impugned Order dated 8th September 2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 for the purposes of the audit. The officers of State Tax visited the place of business of the Petitioner along with their staff on 16th March 2021. At that time, the Chartered Accountant of the Petitioner was present and explained to them all the details of the business of the Petitioner. All the books, documents, records etc., as requested by the said officers, was provided to them. 7. By its letter dated 30th March 2021, the Petitioner filed its Reply to Form GST ADT-1. Thereafter, on 28th January 2022, Respondent No. 3 issued audit findings to the Petitioner. On receipt of the said audit findings, the Petitioner filed its Reply dated 21st February 2022. 8. Respondent No. 3 conducted the audit based on the Reply given by the Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled a detailed Reply dated 26th August 2022 to the said Show Cause Notice. The subject in the said Reply inadvertently referred to it as a response to the audit findings. 12. Respondent No. 3 passed an Order dated 8th September 2022 without giving any personal hearing to the Petitioner. The said Order held that for the period 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018, the Petitioner was required to pay tax on supply of flats by the Petitioner to the SRA, that the Petitioner had claimed excess ITC and had not reversed the proportionate ITC claimed on unsold flats/area at the time of the Occupation Certificate. Accordingly, by the said Order, the Petitioner was required to pay CGST/MGST amounting to Rs. 20,02,16,288/- (inclusive of interest and pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verse to the Petitioner has been passed. In these circumstances, Respondent No. 3 was bound to give a personal hearing to the Petitioner before passing the said Order dated 8th September 2022. This would be irrespective of the fact as to whether the Petitioner had asked for such a personal hearing or not. 18. In these circumstances, in the present case, since the said Order dated 8th September 2022, has been passed without giving any personal hearing to the Petitioner, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST/MGST Act. 19. We are supported in this view by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Kuehne Nagel Private Limited Vs. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
