Sri Bharath Constructions vs. The Asst Commissioner
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of personal hearing after filing their detailed reply, which included a specific request for such a hearing. The Court noted that while the impugned order mentioned a personal hearing was considered and granted, it lacked specifics regarding the date and proceedings. The Court found that given the detailed nature of the petitioner's reply, encompassing significant factual and legal submissions, a personal hearing ought to have been provided to effectively adjudicate the issues. Consequently, the Court found the impugned order to be in violation of natural justice principles. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent with a direction to issue a notice fixing a date for personal hearing, afford the petitioner an opportunity to present their arguments, and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the 1st respondent (AAO). The order confirmed demands for CGST, SGST, IGST, interest, and penalty, totaling significant amounts. The petitioner argued that despite requesting a personal hearing in their reply dated 04.03.2022 to a show cause notice dated 31.12.2021, no such opportunity was provided. This, the petitioner contended, violated the principles of natural justice. The impugned order itself mentioned that a personal hearing was considered and granted, but did not specify the date or what transpired. The petitioner's additional affidavit reiterated that no personal hearing was granted. The revenue opposed the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner, as contemplated under the CGST Act/APGST Act and relevant rules? The petitioner argued that they explicitly requested a personal hearing in their reply to the show cause notice due to the complex factual and legal aspects involved. They contended that the failure to provide this opportunity, despite the detailed nature of their reply, rendered the subsequent order illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought a remand of the matter for a proper hearing. The revenue opposed the writ petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond their opposition.
Sections Cited
Section 148, Section 74, Section 73(9), Section 50
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order AAO No.ZH370722od11999 Dated 25.07.2022 confirming the demands of CGST/ APGST, Interest and Penalty being CGST of Rs.73,41,307/-, SGST of Rs.73,41,307/- under Section 74; IGST demand of Rs.1,71,959/-, Penalty of Rs.1,48,54,573/- under Section 74/73(9); Interest of Rs.1,19,10,247/- under Section 50, as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice.
Heard Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel, who represents Sri Karan Talwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax and having regard to the nature of the prayer made during the course
-2-
of hearing today this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the par
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.