opportunity of hearing
Case Title | Balaramudu Chanampalli vs Assistant Commissioner. |
Court | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice C.Praveen Kumar & Justice V.Sujatha |
Citation | 2022 (4) GSTPanacea 333 HC Andhra Pradesh W.P.A. 8768 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 22-April-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Learned Counsel |
Council for Respondent | Sri N.Harinath |
Section | Section 75(4) of the Act |
In Favour of | In Favour of Assesee |
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice C.Praveen Kumar & Justice V.Sujatha has held that Without hearing the petitioner, an adverse order came to be passed, which is impugned in this case. Accordingly the matter be remanded back to the party concerned for fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing.
opportunity of hearing
FACTS OF THE CASE
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Order passed by the First Respondent in Form DRC-07 vide Reference no.1/IGST, dated 14.12.2020, relating to the Tax Periods 04/2018 to 03/2019 under the IGST Act, 2017, as violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to law, contrary to S.75(4) of the GST Acts, 2017, unjustified and unsustainable and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass……”
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by respondent No.1 in Form GST DRC-07 vide Reference No.1/IGST, dated 14.12.2020, relating to the tax periods from 04/2018 to 03/2019 under the IGST Act, 2017, and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for consideration of the same after giving notice of personal hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs
opportunity of hearing
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that that the matter be remanded back to the party concerned for fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing.
In the instant case, a notice for personal hearing, dated 13.10.2020, was issued to the petitioner. But on that day, the Assistant Commissioner directed the petitioner herein to produce documents for verification but however, did not give any date for hearing. Without hearing the petitioner, an adverse order came to be passed, which is impugned in this case.
opportunity of hearing
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
In the instant case, a notice for personal hearing, dated 13.10.2020, was issued to the petitioner. But on that day, the Assistant Commissioner directed the petitioner herein to produce documents for verification but however, did not give any date for hearing. Without hearing the petitioner, an adverse order came to be passed, which is impugned in this case
Therefore, it can be said that there is violation of Section 75(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. It may not be necessary for us to go into the other aspects since the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone
Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission
It may not be necessary for us to go into the facts in detail for the reason that the order impugned is challenged mainly on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the I.G.S.T./A.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017
Downland PDF:
For Reference Visit: