M/S.Greenstar Fertilizers Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Greenstar Fertilizers Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte order-in-original dated December 20, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise. The petitioner contended that the respondent authority failed to provide adequate opportunities for personal hearings as mandated by Section 75(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Specifically, notices for personal hearings on October 26, 2023, and November 10, 2023, were received by the petitioner with insufficient time to prepare. Furthermore, on December 4, 2023, due to a cyclone, the petitioner could not appear and requested a video conference hearing, which was denied. The petitioner asserted readiness to present their case with supporting documents if given another opportunity.

Held

The Court held that while Section 75(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, provides for three personal hearings, the circumstances presented by the petitioner indicated a lack of adequate opportunity. The Court noted that the notices for the first two hearings were received with very short notice, and the third hearing was impacted by a cyclone, with the petitioner's request for a video conference being unheeded. Given that the petitioner possessed sufficient materials and was ready to present their case, the Court found it appropriate to grant one more opportunity. The impugned order was not quashed outright but was set aside with a direction to the respondent to provide a final hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear on March 7, 2024, with all relevant documents, and the respondent was to consider the case and pass suitable orders expeditiously.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority provided the petitioner with the mandatory three personal hearings as stipulated under Section 75(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the opportunities afforded were adequate? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices for personal hearings were received with insufficient time, preventing them from adequately preparing their case. They also contended that their request for a video conference hearing on December 4, 2023, due to a cyclone, was unfairly denied. The petitioner claimed to possess sufficient materials to substantiate their case and sought one more opportunity. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that sufficient opportunities, as contemplated under Section 75(5) of the CGST Act, were provided on October 26, 2023, November 10, 2023, and December 4, 2023. They asserted that the petitioner failed to avail these opportunities and was now raising the issue of insufficient opportunities.