Geetai Steels PVT LTD Thr Its Authorised Signatory vs. Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing as contemplated by Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that while the Petitioner had requested a personal hearing in their written response, and the Respondent had fairly admitted that no hearing was granted despite an adverse order being made, the Petitioner had inadvertently selected 'N' on the portal. However, the Court emphasized that Section 75(4) mandates a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. Since an adverse decision was made against the Petitioner, an opportunity for a personal hearing should have been provided. The Court found this to be a short ground for interference. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11 September 2024 were set aside, and the matter was remanded to Respondent No. 2 for a fresh decision after granting the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing. All contentions on merits were left open for both parties.

Facts

The Petitioner, Geetai Steels Pvt. Ltd., filed two writ petitions challenging an order dated 11 September 2024 passed by Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner of State Tax, for the Financial Years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The primary contention of the Petitioner was that they were not afforded an opportunity for a personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). While the Petitioner had requested a personal hearing in their written response, they had inadvertently selected 'N' instead of 'Y' on the portal regarding the hearing. The Respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, fairly conceded that no hearing was granted despite an adverse order being passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing as contemplated by Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, despite an adverse decision being made against them? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated or requested. They contended that despite requesting a personal hearing in their written submission, and the fact that an adverse order was passed, no such hearing was granted. They relied on the provision itself for their argument. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent pointed out that the Petitioner had declined the personal hearing order on the portal. However, the Respondent fairly admitted that no hearing as contemplated by Section 75(4) was granted to the Petitioner, even though an adverse order was eventually made. The Respondent did not present any further arguments against the Petitioner's claim regarding the denial of hearing.