|
Petitioner |
Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals |
|
Respondent |
CCT & Ors. |
|
Decision by |
Allahabad High Court |
|
Date of order or Judgement |
4-March-2022 |
|
Citation no. |
Writ Tax No. 1029 of 2021 2022 (3) GSTPanacea 58 HC Allahabad |
|
Hon’ble Judge |
Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani |
|
Decision |
In Favour of Assessee |
Breach of Principles of Natural Justice-No Opportunity of Hearing Afforded. When an adverse decision is contemplated against a person, it is mandatory for the authority concerned to afford opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order adverse to such person.
Breach of Principles of Natural Justice-Facts of the Case
Breach of Principles of Natural Justice-The petitioner filed applications before High Court to setaside and quash the IMPUGNED Order of Adjudication Dt. 09.11.2021 and connected demand of tax which is made is gross violation of the principles of natural Justice.
No oral hearing in the matter was afforded to Petitioner, adverse material has not been confronted to Petitioner resulting in a most Unfair Trial.
The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction commanding revenue authorities to reconsider the case of the Petitioner, lawfully and in good-faith, in the light of submissions filed by Petitioner, and with supplying of relief upon documents and after affording due and proper opportunity of hearing.
Argument Before Court
Breach of Principles of Natural Justice-Petitioner’s Contention
Breach of Principles of Natural Justice-The petitioner submits that the impugned assessment order creating demand of tax, interest and penalty, has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing contemplated in Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017/ U.P. Goods and Services Tax, 2017
Therefore, the impugned order being patently in breach of principles of natural justice, is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed.
Breach of Principles of Natural Justice-Respondent’s Argument
Breach of Principles of Natural Justice-The respondent submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under section 107 of the Act, 2017.
Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
The respondents have taken the stand that no opportunity of hearing is required before passing the assessment order. In support of their contention the respondents have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. M/s.Jesus Sales Corporation AIR 1996 SC 1509. “Provided also that, where the Appellate authority is of opinion that the deposit to be made will cause undue hardship to the appellant, it may, at its discretion, dispense with such deposit either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may impose.”
Allahabad High Court Held
Breach of Principles of Natural Justice-The Hon’ble High Court held that it is evident that opportunity of hearing has to be granted to the person chargeable with tax or penalty for opportunity of hearing or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.
Thus, where an adverse decision is contemplated against the person, such a person even need not to request for opportunity of personal hearing and it is mandatory for the authority concerned to afford opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order adverse to such person.
The Hon’ble High Court held that no opportunity of personal hearing, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017, was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
Availability of alternative remedy is not a complete bar to entertain a writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India.
For all the reasons aforestated, the Impugned Order, under section 74 of the Act can not be sustained and is hereby quashed.
Download PDF
Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals
For Reference Visit:
Allahabad High Court